Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

Niv Goomai and Bar Hajbi purchased a property in Cincinnati and contracted with H&E Enterprise, L.L.C., Ohad Investment Group, and Avi Ohad for renovations. The renovations were not completed, leading Goomai to sell the property. Goomai then sued the defendants for breach of contract, violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking actual damages but not injunctive relief.A jury trial was held before a magistrate, where the jury found that H&E had breached its contract and awarded Goomai $30,604.09 in damages. The jury also found that H&E and Ohad had engaged in deceptive trade practices but awarded $0 in damages for this violation. The jury ruled in favor of the defendants on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Goomai subsequently filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, which the magistrate denied, reasoning that Goomai did not qualify as a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act since they did not obtain any relief on the merits of their claim. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, and Goomai appealed.The First District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act is one who obtains a judgment in their favor, regardless of whether they received a remedy. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees to which Goomai was entitled.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and concluded that to be a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a plaintiff must obtain actual damages or injunctive relief. Since Goomai did not receive any monetary damages or injunctive relief, they were not considered prevailing parties. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment denying attorney’s fees. View "Goomai v. H&E Enterprise, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Vanessa Wells, a parent in the Lakota Local Schools district, filed a public records request seeking legal documentation related to the district's superintendent, Matt Miller, from the law firm of Elizabeth Tuck. Wells was concerned about allegations against Miller. The district's attorney, Brodi Conover, responded by providing a cease-and-desist letter but withheld other documents. Wells clarified her request to include all communications between Tuck and the school board regarding Miller from September 2022 to January 2023. Conover responded that certain communications were privileged and not subject to disclosure.Wells also requested all legal invoices from January 2022 to January 2023. Conover provided redacted invoices, omitting attorney names, hours, rates, and service descriptions, citing attorney-client privilege. In September 2023, after Wells filed a mandamus action, the district provided less-redacted invoices, retaining only the narrative descriptions and bank-account-related information.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. It granted a writ of mandamus ordering the district to produce a demand letter from Tuck, rejecting the district's argument that it was protected under a federal settlement privilege. The court found that the district's reliance on Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc. was misplaced. The court awarded Wells $2,000 in statutory damages for the district's failure to timely produce the demand letter and the improperly redacted invoices. The court also awarded some attorney fees and court costs to Wells but denied additional attorney fees related to the invoices, finding no evidence of bad faith by the district. View "State ex rel. Wells v. Lakota Local Schools Board of Education" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the appellant, Jeffery Woods, who filed a legal malpractice lawsuit in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. The defendant in the lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Woods then attempted to remove the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. However, a United States magistrate judge recommended denying Woods's petition for removal and remanding the matter back to the state court. The federal court eventually adopted this recommendation. Meanwhile, before the federal court had ruled on Woods's objections, Judge Heekin of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granted the motion to dismiss Woods's legal malpractice lawsuit.Woods then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus against Judge Heekin in the First District Court of Appeals, arguing that the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction over his legal malpractice lawsuit once he filed his notice of removal to federal court. He sought an order for Judge Heekin to vacate the judgment of dismissal. Judge Heekin filed a motion to dismiss Woods's mandamus complaint, arguing that Woods did not perform the necessary steps for effecting removal to federal court, and thus the common pleas court still had jurisdiction. The court of appeals dismissed Woods's mandamus complaint, but not for the reasons set forth in Judge Heekin’s motion. Instead, the court of appeals dismissed the complaint on the basis that “mandamus cannot be used to compel a particular ruling from a judge.”The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, but disagreed with its reasoning. The Supreme Court held that if Woods was correct that Judge Heekin patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the legal-malpractice action, a writ of mandamus would be an appropriate remedy. However, the Supreme Court found that Woods did not complete all the necessary steps for removal to federal court, and thus the common pleas court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to dismiss the legal-malpractice action. Therefore, the dismissal of Woods's mandamus complaint was correct. View "State ex rel. Woods v. Heekin" on Justia Law

This case originates from the Supreme Court of Ohio and concerns a defendant, Tyler Wilson, who was charged with attempted murder and felonious assault. The charges stemmed from an altercation at a gas station where Wilson fired a gun out his car window to scare off the other party involved in the dispute. Wilson claimed he acted in self-defense, but the trial court determined that he was not entitled to a self-defense jury instruction because he did not intend to harm or kill the other party. Wilson was found guilty of felonious assault, but not attempted murder.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that an individual does not need to intend to harm or kill another person to be entitled to a self-defense jury instruction in a criminal trial. The court found that Wilson’s testimony supported the intent element for self-defense and that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to request a self-defense jury instruction. As such, the court vacated Wilson’s conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Ohio denied a request from Jeryne Peterson, the mayor of Buckeye Lake, for writs of prohibition and mandamus against the Licking County Board of Elections and its members, the Fairfield County Board of Elections and its members, and the village of Buckeye Lake and its council president, Linda Goodman. Peterson was seeking to prevent a scheduled recall election from taking place.The court found that Peterson failed to show that she was entitled to a writ of prohibition preventing the village from setting the recall-election date or preventing the respondent boards of elections from conducting that election. She also failed to show that she was entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the respondent boards of elections to remove the recall election from the ballot. The court also denied Peterson’s motion to disqualify the village’s attorney. View "State ex rel. Peterson v. Licking County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Relator Mark Repp's quo warranto claim he sought to oust Rhonda Best from judicial office and to declare him the rightful holder of the office and dismissed all other claims sua sponte, holding that Repp was not entitled to relief.In 2019, Repp was elected to a six-year term as judge of a municipal court. Less than two years into his term, the Supreme Court found that Repp had engaged in professional misconduct and suspended him for one year from the practice of law. Because Repp failed to perform his official duties for more than six months, the judicial office he held was declared vacant, and Governor Mike DeWine appointed Best to fill the vacancy. After Repp was reinstated to the practice of law he filed this original action seeking a writ of quo warranto to oust Best from officer and also sought a writ of prohibition, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. The Supreme Court denied all forms of relief, holding (1) if a judge is absent from his official duties for at least six months, the appropriate legislative authority is allow to declare the judicial office vacant under Ohio Rev. Code 1901.10(B); and (2) Repp's remaining requests either failed to state a claim, or this Court lacked jurisdiction over his claims. View "State ex rel. Repp v. Best" on Justia Law

In this case involving a dispute about a statute that sets forth the requirements a firm must meet to provide engineering services in the state of Ohio the Supreme Court held that there is nothing in the statutory language of Ohio Rev. Code 4733.16(D) to preclude an independent contractor from serving as a full-time manager of an engineering firm.Section 4733.16(D) provides that an engineering firm must designate one or more full-time partners, managers, members, officers, or directors as in "responsible charge" of its engineering activities. The Ohio Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors denied TWISM Enterprises, LLC a certificate of authorization to provide engineering services, adopting a hardline rule that section 4733.16(D) requires formal W-2 employment. The court of appeals upheld the determination. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that TWISM met the requirements for a certificate of authorization to practice engineering. View "TWISM Enterprises, LLC v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a negligent credentialing is a separate and independent claim from medical negligence but that a negligent credentialing claim cannot proceed without either a simultaneous or prior adjudication of or stipulation to medical negligence.At issue was whether a hospital's grant of staff privileges to a physician, otherwise known as credentialing a physician, confers a duty upon the hospital that is separate and independent of the duty the physical owes to the hospital's patients. If so, the question remained whether a patient's negligent credentialing claim can proceed in the absence of a prior adjudication or stipulation that the physician was negligent in his care of the patient. The trial court in this case granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment on the negligent credentialing claim. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a negligent credentialing claim cannot proceed without either a simultaneous or prior adjudication of or stipulation that a doctor committed medical malpractice; and (2) because such an adjudication or stipulation was not present in this case, the negligent credentialing claim was properly dismissed. View "Walling v. Brenya" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of disclosing confidential information in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 102.03(B), holding that a person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Ohio Ethics Commission (Commission) may be criminally prosecuted for a violation of section 102.03(B) without the Commission first investigating or prosecuting the charge.Defendant, a sheriff, was found guilty of violating section 102.03(B), a provision of Ohio's ethics law, for posting confidential information on the website of the sheriff's office. At issue on appeal was whether a criminal prosecution may be brought alleging a violation of section 102.03(B) without a prior review of the charges by the Commission. The court of appeals held that the trial court properly refused to dismiss the charges against Defendant on these grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that prosecutions may be brought by a prosecuting authority before the Commission initiates or completes its investigation. View "State v. Towns" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that statements made by a medical doctor during a medical board investigation were inadmissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution of that doctor, holding that the trial court properly admitted incriminating answers given by the doctor during the investigation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) a medical license is a property right, and the threatened loss of the license is a form of coercion that can compromise the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; (2) in order for coercion to be sufficient to warrant the suppression of statements made during a medical board investigative review, the coercion must be both subjectively believed and objectively reasonable; and (3) competent, credible evidence supported the trial court's factual finding that the doctor did not objectively believe that a refusal truthfully to answer questions posed by the medical board investigator could lead to the loss of the doctor's medical license. View "State v. Gideon" on Justia Law