Ratonel v. Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A. (Slip Opinion)
147 Ohio St. 3d 485
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Ratonel and related companies purchased Holden House (Ohio) and earlier had purchased French Village (Nebraska). They engaged Roetzel & Andress (Ropchock) to sue prior counsel KMK for malpractice relating to Holden House.
- Engagement letter (March 2009) expressly limited Ropchock’s representation to the Holden House purchase; it did not mention French Village but contemplated possible additional services if separately agreed.
- Ropchock communicated repeatedly that he investigated French Village but ultimately concluded a malpractice claim over French Village was not viable and told Ratonel he would not pursue it.
- The initial complaint against KMK briefly referenced French Village in one paragraph, but the amended complaint dropped any French Village allegations and sought no damages for that transaction.
- Ratonel later sued Ropchock, alleging legal malpractice for failing to assert a French Village claim; the trial court granted summary judgment for Ropchock, the court of appeals reversed, and the Ohio Supreme Court accepted review.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether an attorney-client relationship (scope of representation) included the French Village matter and whether summary judgment for the defense was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ropchock agreed to represent Ratonel on a French Village malpractice claim | Ratonel: communications and references show she expected Ropchock to assert the French Village claim | Ropchock: engagement letter limited scope to Holden House; he investigated but refused to take the French Village claim as nonviable | Held: No; representation was limited to Holden House and Ropchock declined to represent on French Village, so no duty existed |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on the failed-French-Village-malpractice claim | Ratonel: factual disputes about representations/preliminary references create triable issues | Ropchock: undisputed evidence shows he declined the claim and communicated that decision | Held: Summary judgment appropriate; no genuine issue of material fact about scope/declination |
Key Cases Cited
- New Destiny Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Wheeler, 950 N.E.2d 157 (Ohio 2011) (elements of legal-malpractice claim: attorney-client relationship/duty, breach, causation, damages)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hardiman, 798 N.E.2d 369 (Ohio 2003) (scope of representation may be formed by implication from conduct and client expectations)
- Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 767 N.E.2d 707 (Ohio 2002) (de novo standard of review for summary judgment)