Sandor v. Marks
2014 Ohio 685
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Sandor hired Marks to represent him in a divorce and paid a retainer; the engagement was terminated by Marks before resolution of the divorce.
- Sandor sued Marks and the firm for legal malpractice and breach; the firm and its partner answered, raising defenses including statute of limitations.
- Marks moved for summary judgment arguing Sandor’s claims were time-barred; Sandor opposed; the trial court granted summary judgment for Marks and the firm.
- The key issue is when the legal-malpractice claim accrued for purposes of the one-year statute of limitations under R.C. 2305.11(A), and whether the attorney‑client relationship termination or cognizable event occurred later.
- The trial court held the relationship terminated on November 7, 2011, when Marks sent withdrawal notice and filed a time-stamped withdrawal in the divorce action.
- Sandor’s malpractice claim was filed November 8, 2012, more than one year after the November 7, 2011 termination date, rendering it time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statute of limitations barred Sandor's malpractice claim | Sandor contends the accrual date was later than November 7, 2011. | Marks contends the attorney-client relationship terminated on November 7, 2011, triggering the one-year clock. | Accrual on November 7, 2011; complaint filed 2012 was time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter and Griswold, 43 Ohio St.3d 54 (1989) (malpractice accrues when cognizable event or termination occurs, later of the two)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary-judgment standard; burden-shifting on Civ.R. 56)
- Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594 (2009) (lawyers’ malpractice includes firm liability only through liable principals)
- Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (1996) (reciprocal burden after initial movant's proof)