Eichenberger v. Chilton-Clark

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 3343

Syllabus

A lawyer who behaved unprofessionally toward a client who had paid some of a bill but disputed the full total was required to present independent expert evidence to substantiate the reasonableness of the full bill. Failing to do so, summary judgment was due to the client. The same lawyer was not entitled to recover fees on a contingent fee case in which the contingency (the client's recovery) never occurred. Successor counsel was legally permitted to interfere in the contract between the predecessor counsel and his client as a matter of legal competition.