Linda G. Holt v. Thompson Hine, LLP, 2017 CA 001245

Three sisters (Holt, Prewitt, Roeder) participated in federal litigation against several brothers; the district court found the brothers breached fiduciary duties and awarded the sisters approximately $548 million; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
While the brothers’ appeal was pending, the sisters sued the brothers’ law firm, Thompson Hine, LLP, alleging the firm aided and abetted the breaches.
The sisters alleged they discovered the possible claims against Thompson Hine during federal discovery in August 2013 but did not add the firm in federal court; they filed the new suit on August 29, 2016.
Thompson Hine moved to dismiss under CR 12.02, arguing the suit was time-barred; the Kenton Circuit Court granted dismissal, relying on the one-year malpractice statute (KRS 413.245) and alternative five-year theory.
Post-judgment, ex parte emails from the circuit judge’s assistant to only Thompson Hine’s counsel (requesting proposed orders) came to light; the sisters argued this required reversal.
On remand after the Kentucky Supreme Court’s Seiller decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal: Seiller establishes KRS 413.245 governs nonclient claims against attorneys; the ex parte contacts were improper but harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether KRS 413.245 (one‑year professional malpractice SOL) applies to nonclient claims against an attorney for aiding and abetting clients’ wrongful conduct	The aiding/abetting of criminal or wrongful conduct is not a "professional service," so KRS 413.245 should not apply	KRS 413.245 applies to any civil action arising from acts or omissions in rendering professional services, regardless of claimant identity or alleged malice	Court held KRS 413.245 applies to nonclient claims against attorneys; one‑year SOL bars the suit
Whether tolling or discovery in the federal case saved the sisters’ claims	Sisters: they discovered claims in Aug 2013 during federal discovery; tolling/late discovery should permit suit	Thompson Hine: the one‑year period expired before filing; tolling does not save claims	Court held tolling did not save the claims; suit filed well after one‑year period expired
Whether ex parte communications between the judge’s staff and Thompson Hine’s counsel require reversal	Sisters: ex parte emails deprived them of notice and opportunity to respond; decision must be vacated	Thompson Hine/Court: contacts were improper but the court’s decision reflects independent deliberation; error was harmless	Court held ex parte contacts improper and discouraged, but harmless here; judgment affirmed

Seiller Waterman, LLC v. RLB Properties, Ltd., 610 S.W.3d 188 (Ky. 2020) (KRS 413.245 governs claims arising from acts in rendering professional services and applies to nonclients; malice does not exempt claims from the one‑year limit)
Abel v. Austin, 411 S.W.3d 728 (Ky. 2013) (KRS 413.245 is the exclusive statute of limitations for attorney malpractice claims)
Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2010) (standards for CR 12.02 motion to dismiss and de novo review)
Osborn v. Griffin, 865 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2017) (appellate decision affirming district court’s rulings for the sisters against the brothers)
Commonwealth v. Cambron, 546 S.W.3d 556 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018) (discusses that ex parte communications between judge and counsel are disfavored and limited to narrow administrative purposes)