Kinasz v. Dickson, 2018 Ohio 1754

Plaintiff Mary Kinasz (pro se), individually and as executor of an estate, sued her former attorney Blake Dickson for legal malpractice arising from a 2013 nursing-home negligence case that settled January 2013.
Kinasz first sued Dickson in August 2015, voluntarily dismissed that action in February 2016, and refiled her malpractice complaint on February 3, 2017.
Dickson moved for summary judgment arguing the malpractice claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and, alternatively, that Kinasz failed to prove damages.
Kinasz contended the limitations period should be tolled because she discovered additional misconduct (file withholding, fraud, manipulation) only in late 2014 and claimed Dickson continued work after she fired him.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Dickson; the appellate court affirmed, holding the malpractice claim was time-barred under both the “cognizable event” and termination-of-attorney-client-relationship tests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a “cognizable event” triggered the one-year malpractice statute	Kinasz says she did not discover full extent of misconduct until Dec 2014 (and some entries until May 2017), so limitations did not start in Jan 2013	Dickson says the settlement and related events in Jan 2013 (and subsequent complaints/letters) put Kinasz on notice more than one year before the 2015 filing	Held: Cognizable event occurred by Jan 2013; claim filed too late
Whether the attorney-client relationship terminated later than March 21, 2014	Kinasz contends misconduct continued and she discovered more facts in Dec 2014, implying a later termination for accrual purposes	Dickson shows Kinasz’s March 21, 2014 termination letter and his March 31, 2014 motion to withdraw; termination date is March 21, 2014	Held: Client’s March 21, 2014 termination was clear; accrual under termination test occurred then; claim untimely
Whether plaintiff failed to establish damages causally linked to attorney breach	Kinasz sought damages and alleged settlement manipulation and loss	Dickson argued plaintiff failed to show proximate-cause damages	Held: Court did not reach merits because statute-of-limitations disposed of the case (alternative basis noted but unnecessary)

Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary judgment standard)
State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 217 (summary judgment standard)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, 43 Ohio St.3d 54 (when a legal-malpractice cause of action accrues)
Omni-Food & Fashion v. Smith, 38 Ohio St.3d 385 (attorney-client relationship termination is a factual question)