Hastings v. Lee
2023 Ohio 2986
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Hastings and Lee are parents of two minor children; Hastings was designated residential parent in a 2012 paternity action and Lee has parenting time and support obligations.
- In 2021 Lee moved to modify parental rights; in February 2022 he moved to disqualify Hastings’ counsel, Steven Schierholt, because Schierholt is Hastings’ stepfather and the children’s step-grandfather.
- Lee argued Schierholt regularly cared for and transported the children, observed interactions with Lee, relayed the children’s statements to the Guardian ad Litem (GAL), and promised a child he would report her statements to the GAL — making him likely a necessary witness.
- A three-hour hearing admitted testimony and emails showing Schierholt’s personal observations and communications with the GAL; the magistrate found his testimony likely necessary and granted disqualification, noting Hastings presented no financial evidence of hardship.
- The trial court overruled Hastings’ objections and affirmed the magistrate; Hastings appealed, arguing the disqualification was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel should be disqualified under Prof.Cond.R. 3.7 (attorney as necessary witness) | Hastings: Schierholt’s activities do not disqualify him; disqualification would impose financial hardship and leave her without counsel | Lee: Schierholt made firsthand observations, provided statements to the GAL, and thus is likely a necessary witness; no proof of Hastings’ financial hardship was offered | Court affirmed disqualification: Schierholt likely a necessary witness based on personal observations and communications; Hastings failed to prove the hardship exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Kale v. Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co., Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1998) (orders disqualifying counsel are final and appealable)
- 155 North High Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 423 (Ohio 1995) (motions to disqualify reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition and standard for abuse of discretion)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (unreasonable decisions lack a sound reasoning process)
- Akron v. Carter, 190 Ohio App.3d 420 (Ohio Ct. App.) (a party’s mere declaration to call opposing counsel is insufficient; necessity requires testimony be admissible and unobtainable elsewhere)