R & J Solutions, Inc. v. Moses, 171 N.E.3d 478

R & J Solutions sued its former attorney, Ambrose Moses, for legal malpractice after Premier Trailer Leasing obtained summary judgment for $40,279.37 in an underlying collection suit.
R & J alleged Moses failed to disclose or respond to Premier’s discovery (including requests for admissions served Aug. 23, 2016) and failed to notify R & J of Premier’s summary judgment motion; Moses conceded he did not respond and said it was overlooked.
Because the requests for admissions were unanswered, the admissions became facts and the trial court in the underlying case granted summary judgment; R & J later settled post-judgment for $15,000.
At the malpractice bench trial, the trial court ruled for Moses, finding R & J had not proven breach (requiring expert testimony) or causation; R & J appealed.
The Tenth District held expert testimony was not required to show breach for missing the discovery deadline and remanded for the trial court to apply Vahila’s “some evidence” causation standard and, if met, determine damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony was required to prove breach of the attorney standard of care	Expert testimony not required because the breach (failing to respond to requests for admissions/missing discovery deadline) is obvious to a layperson	Claims about strategy and legal issues in opposing summary judgment make the breach a matter requiring expert proof	Court: expert testimony was not required to prove breach as to the missed discovery/requests for admissions because the failure was obvious and admitted by the attorney; first assignment sustained
Whether R & J established causation between Moses’s conduct and damages	R & J argued damages flowed from Moses’s failure to preserve defenses and that some evidence of the merits of the underlying claim existed	Moses argued legal complexity and evidence presented in the underlying case rebut causal link and that settlement amount exceeded R & J’s claimed smaller exposure	Court: trial court’s causation analysis was insufficiently clear; remanded for the trial court to apply Vahila’s “some evidence” standard to determine causation and, if met, assess damages

Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) (sets out legal-malpractice elements and allows "some evidence" standards for causation in certain cases)
McInnis v. Hyatt Legal Clinics, 10 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1984) (expert testimony generally required to prove standard-of-care breach unless breach is within lay understanding)
Environmental Network Corp. v. Goodman Weiss Miller, L.L.P., 119 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2008) (discusses case-within-a-case / "but-for" causation and when trial-within-a-trial is required)
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594 (Ohio 2009) (addressing establishment of attorney-client relationship and related duty issues)