Kreis v. Dollings
2025 Ohio 1329
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Dustin Matthew Kreis (plaintiff) and Caitlin Rebecca Dollings (defendant) were involved in litigation related to the custody of two children: their mutual child, A.K., and Dollings's child from a previous marriage, L.D.
- Kreis's attorney, Brian Benbow, had formerly represented Dollings in her divorce from L.D.'s father, where custody of L.D. was at issue.
- After Benbow began representing Kreis in both custody cases, Dollings moved to disqualify him, citing his prior attorney-client relationship with her in a substantially related matter.
- The trial court granted the motion, disqualifying Benbow based on conflict of interest rules.
- Kreis appealed, arguing the disqualification was improper for reasons including waiver, prejudice, lack of evidentiary hearing, and misapplication of the Dana test.
- The appellate court affirmed the disqualification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Dollings waive or forfeit the conflict? | Delay in motion constituted waiver and laches | Delay due to intimidation/substance abuse, not intentional waiver | No waiver, estoppel, or laches; delay was not prejudicial |
| Was an evidentiary hearing required? | Trial court should have held a hearing | Written submissions were sufficient; hearing unnecessary | No hearing required except for firm “side-switching”; none here |
| Was subject matter substantially related? | Prior divorce was unrelated to current custody disputes | Divorce/custody and current custody disputes are substantially related | Subject matters are substantially related; divorce involved L.D.'s custody |
| Did attorney acquire confidential information? | No specific confidences identified by Dollings | Discussions included confidential info tied to custody | Confidentiality presumed; Dollings not required to specify details |
Key Cases Cited
- Royal Indem. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., 27 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 1986) (establishes court’s inherent authority to supervise and disqualify counsel)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion)
- Dana Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of N. Ohio, 900 F.2d 882 (6th Cir. 1990) (sets forth the three-part disqualification test)
- Morgan v. N. Coast Cable Co., 63 Ohio St.3d 156 (Ohio 1992) (looks to rules of professional conduct for guidance in attorney disqualification)