Socha v. Weiss
2017 Ohio 7610
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Socha sued his former probate attorneys, Weiss and Eversman, for legal malpractice based on their alleged failure to return certain probate-file documents he requested in May/June 2000.
- The documents were said to be needed for Socha’s pro se petition for postconviction relief in a 1999 criminal conviction.
- Socha originally filed pro se in June 2014, voluntarily dismissed, then refiled in March 2016 with counsel. He alleged Weiss partially returned documents in or after June 2013 but withheld others.
- Defendants acknowledged representing Socha in the probate matter, that the matter settled, and that they produced some documents in December 2013; they denied malpractice and raised the statute-of-limitations defense.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, holding any malpractice claim accrued in 2000 (when the documents were first not produced) and thus was barred by the one-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims.
- The court of appeals affirmed, concluding (1) the cognizable event occurred in 2000 and (2) the attorney-client relationship for the probate matter had ended well before 2013, so the one-year limitations period was not tolled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Socha’s malpractice claim was time-barred under R.C. 2305.11(A) | Socha argued the claim accrued when Weiss partially returned documents in 2013, so his 2014 filing was timely | Defendants argued the claim accrued in 2000 when Socha first requested and did not receive the documents; suit was filed long after one-year limit | Court held claim accrued in 2000 (cognizable event), so it was time-barred |
| Whether the attorney-client relationship continued such that accrual was tolled until defendants returned file items | Socha contended relationship persisted until defendants returned documents or formally ended representation, creating a factual issue for trial | Defendants argued the probate matter had settled and representation ended long before 2013, so no tolling | Court held, as a matter of law given the pleadings, the representation ended well before 2013 and accrual was not tolled |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmie v. Calfee, 43 Ohio St.3d 54, 538 N.E.2d 398 (Ohio 1989) (accrual rule for legal malpractice: claim accrues when client discovers or should discover injury or when representation for that undertaking terminates)
- Rayess v. Educational Comm. for Foreign Med. Graduates, 134 Ohio St.3d 509, 983 N.E.2d 1267 (Ohio 2012) (standards for reviewing Civ.R. 12(C) motions and de novo review)
- Flowers v. Walker, 63 Ohio St.3d 546, 589 N.E.2d 1284 (Ohio 1992) (discussion of when a malpractice plaintiff is on notice to investigate attorney conduct)
- McGlothin v. Schad, 194 Ohio App.3d 669, 957 N.E.2d 810 (Ohio App. 2011) (termination of attorney-client relationship may be resolved as a matter of law where reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion)