Richard C. Alkire Co., L.P.A. v. Alsfelder
2017 Ohio 1547
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Alkire Firm sued Alsfelder in Dec. 2013 to collect unpaid legal fees for representation before the Ohio Supreme Court in a disciplinary matter.
- Alsfelder answered and counterclaimed, and separately sued Alkire and the firm for legal malpractice and respondeat superior; the claims were consolidated.
- Court set discovery and expert-report deadlines; defendant’s expert report due 10/16/2015 and dispositive motions due 10/30/2015.
- Alkire Firm moved for summary judgment (Sept. 18, 2015), arguing Alsfelder produced no expert support for his malpractice claim; Alsfelder contended no expert was required.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Alkire, holding expert testimony was required for malpractice involving Ohio Supreme Court disciplinary representation and Alsfelder produced no expert report.
- Alkire Firm later obtained a default judgment for unpaid fees at trial after Alsfelder failed to appear; Alsfelder appealed the summary-judgment dismissal of his malpractice claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove legal malpractice arising from representation in an Ohio Supreme Court disciplinary matter | Alsfelder: malpractice was obvious; expert not required | Alkire Firm: matter is not within lay knowledge; expert required and none was produced | Court held expert testimony was required; Alsfelder offered none, so summary judgment for Alkire affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary-judgment standard)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (explaining Civ.R. 56 summary-judgment test)
- Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger, 118 Ohio St.3d 226 (2008) (elements plaintiff must prove in legal malpractice action)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 427 (1997) (legal-malpractice framework cited)
- McInnis v. Hyatt Legal Clinics, 10 Ohio St.3d 112 (1984) (expert testimony generally required in legal malpractice unless within lay knowledge)
- Bloom v. Dieckmann, 11 Ohio App.3d 202 (1983) (expert not required only when negligence is obvious to layperson)