In re E.M.J.
2017 Ohio 1090
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Maryann Ruben filed for guardianship over 93‑year‑old E.M.J. on June 17, 2014, naming herself and Nina Najjar (sister of James H. Banks) as nominees; James Banks signed as Ruben’s attorney.
- E.M.J. moved to dismiss; the trial court dismissed the guardianship application in December 2014. E.M.J. then sought attorney fees and later moved to disqualify Banks and Najjar.
- At a September 10, 2015 hearing (no full evidentiary hearing), Najjar appeared and argued on Ruben’s behalf; the court later disqualified Banks and Najjar from representing Ruben.
- The trial court found both attorneys had a prior attorney‑client relationship with E.M.J., that the prior estate‑planning work was substantially related to the guardianship dispute, and that confidences should be presumed disclosed.
- Ruben, Banks, and Najjar appealed, arguing abuse of discretion, procedural defects (lack of service on Najjar), lack of substantial relation/confidentiality, failure to hold evidentiary hearing, and waiver by delay. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (E.M.J.) | Defendant's Argument (Ruben/Banks/Najjar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in disqualifying counsel | Counsel who formerly represented E.M.J. should be disqualified when adverse to former client | Disqualification was unsupported by facts and an abuse of discretion | No abuse of discretion; disqualification affirmed |
| Whether Najjar was properly subject to disqualification despite not being served with motion | No service required because Najjar previously represented E.M.J. and appeared at hearing | Najjar was not counsel and was not served; disqualification procedurally improper | Najjar held herself out as counsel at hearing; court could reasonably treat her as counsel and disqualify her |
| Whether prior representation was substantially related to current matter | Prior estate‑planning representation implicated guardianship and related motions (fees/sanctions) | Prior matters were unrelated; no substantial relationship | Prior estate documents (POA, trust) tied directly to guardianship dispute; substantial relationship found |
| Whether E.M.J. waived right to seek disqualification by delay | Motion timely filed after depositions revealed scope of prior representation; no prejudice from delay | One year delay since guardianship filing constituted waiver/strategic tactic | No waiver; delay did not prejudice defendants; disqualification allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kala v. Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co., Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 1 (recognizes inherent authority to disqualify counsel; courts should hesitate to disqualify absent necessity)
- Sarbey v. Natl. City Bank, Akron, 66 Ohio App.3d 18 (adopts substantial‑relationship test and places burden on moving former client)
- Janis v. Castle Apts., Inc., 90 Ohio App.3d 224 (confidences presumed disclosed to attorney and associates in former representation)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Phillips v. Haidet, 119 Ohio App.3d 322 (recognizes trial court broad discretion on disqualification motions)
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Parisi, 131 Ohio St.3d 345 (no absolute requirement of an evidentiary hearing before ruling on disqualification)