Cohen & Co. v. Breen
2014 Ohio 3915
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Cohen & Company was awarded $166,015.06 in fees for accounting work in Breen’s divorce case.
- Breen retained Cohen after his first firm, Ciuni & Panichi, was replaced mid-trial due to counsel suspension.
- Engagement letter dated April 2011 set partner, staff, and support rates for the engagement.
- Cohen prepared three reports (valuation, income/cash-flow, and tracing) and testified at trial.
- Trial occurred after Breen’s counsel settled; Breen retained all five entities in the settlement.
- Breen dismissed his counterclaim for accounting malpractice; Cohen moved in limine to exclude malpractice evidence; court allowed cross-examination but excluded standard-of-care testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of standard-of-care with no expert | Breen argues Cohen failed to meet contractual accounting standards | Cohen contends standards-of-care evidence requires expert testimony | No abuse of discretion; lack of expert negates malpractice evidence in breach-of-contract framing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207 (Ohio 1988) (malpractice standards may apply to contract actions like torts)
- Ramage v. Cent. Ohio Emergency Serv., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 97 (Ohio 1992) (expert testimony required to prove professional standards)
- Muir v. Hadler Real Estate Mgmt. Co., 4 Ohio App.3d 89 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982) (professional misconduct may be grounded in contract or tort)
- Omlin v. Kaufmann & Cumberland Co., L.P.A., 2003-Ohio-4069 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (discusses expert necessity in professional-malpractice claims)
- Dottore v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., 2014-Ohio-25 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (continues treatment of professional-services malpractice issues)