Buehner v. Cheselka
2022 Ohio 2687
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Michael Buehner was convicted of two murders (2002); postconviction proceedings later revealed undisclosed police reports identifying differently described suspects.
- Buehner retained Michael Cheselka in 2014 under a $10,000 flat-fee agreement to represent him on appeals and state-court proceedings; Russell Randazzo later also entered an appearance and performed substantial work.
- Cheselka did not file an appeal from an adverse 2017 denial of a new-trial motion, did not notify Buehner of the ruling, and did not move to withdraw; Randazzo filed the appeal that produced favorable appellate rulings.
- Buehner sued Cheselka for legal malpractice (and related claims) on October 2, 2019, alleging breach of the fee agreement, failure to communicate, failure to investigate, and resulting fees paid to successor counsel.
- The trial court found an attorney-client relationship persisted, found Cheselka in discovery contempt (deemed admissions admitted), granted summary judgment to Buehner on malpractice, and awarded $164,403.56 in damages; Cheselka appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment for malpractice was proper | Cheselka breached the Fee Agreement and standard of care by failing to notify Buehner of the adverse ruling, failing to appeal, and failing to investigate; breach and damages are established | Trial court erred, showed bias, genuine issues of material fact exist and due process was violated | Affirmed. Court concluded attorney-client relationship continued, breach was obvious (no further expert needed), damages proven and undisputed due to discovery sanctions/default consequences |
| Whether malpractice claim was time-barred under R.C. 2305.11(A) | Claim timely: accrual is later of discovery of injury or termination of representation; terminated Oct. 5, 2018, suit filed Oct. 2, 2019 | Accrual occurred earlier so limitations expired | Affirmed. Representation terminated by letter Oct. 5, 2018; suit filed within one year of termination, so not time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Horton v. Harwick Chemical Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679, 653 N.E.2d 1196 (1995) (summary-judgment standard)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 696 N.E.2d 201 (1998) (summary-judgment standard and construing evidence for nonmoving party)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996) (movant’s burden in summary-judgment practice)
- Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger, 118 Ohio St.3d 226, 887 N.E.2d 1167 (2008) (elements of legal-malpractice claim)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 674 N.E.2d 1164 (1997) (malpractice elements and causation)
- Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, 43 Ohio St.3d 54, 538 N.E.2d 398 (1989) (accrual rule for malpractice statute of limitations)
- McInnis v. Hyatt Legal Clinics, 10 Ohio St.3d 112, 461 N.E.2d 1295 (1984) (expert testimony not required where breach is obvious to layperson)