Tabbaa v. Raslan
2012 Ohio 367
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- In 2002, Tabbaa and Fares Raslan formed Luna’s Deli; Lila Raslan, an attorney, helped form the LLCs and Pla allegedly assisted as counsel.
- In 2003, they formed Kay Properties, LLC to purchase property and secured a loan from National City Bank; transfers to wives Lila and Luna Tabbaa occurred.
- By 2007 Luna’s and Kay Properties faced financial distress; NCB foreclosed, and Tabbaa and Fares pursued cross-claims; Pla represented Fares.
- The trial court disqualified Pla from representing Fares; Pla withdrew, a new attorney appeared, and the cross-claims were resolved.
- In 2010 Tabbaa filed a declaratory-judgment action against Lila; Pla appeared for Lila; Tabbaa moved to disqualify Pla, which the court granted after reconsideration.
- Lila appealed raising multiple challenges to the disqualification order; the appellate court affirmed, considering transcript accessibility and procedural issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Dana test properly applied for disqualification? | Tabbaa contends Dana test was not applied. | Raslan asserts proper standard and evidence supported disqualification. | Overruled; record insufficient to review without transcript. |
| Was there an attorney-client relationship between Pla and Lila? | Tabbaa argues no such relationship created conflict. | Raslan asserts implied or actual conflict through representation. | Overruled; record supports conflict finding. |
| Did Tabbaa adequately allege an attorney-client privilege? | Tabbaa contends privilege absence undermines disqualification. | Raslan argues privilege not properly invoked for purposes here. | Overruled; insufficient basis to challenge under privilege theory. |
| Did Tabbaa demonstrate that Pla acquired confidential information? | Tabbaa maintains undisclosed confidential facts were obtained. | Raslan contends no such information was demonstrated. | Overruled; evidence insufficient to negate disqualification. |
| Is the challenge to disqualification moot regarding res judicata? | Tabbaa argues res judicata should bar reconsideration. | Raslan contends mootness due to presumption of regularity. | Moot; and thus no ongoing issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dana v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 900 F.2d 882 (6th Cir. 1990) (basis for conflict-of-interest and duty to disclose)
- Carnegie Cos., Inc. v. Summit Properties, Inc., 183 Ohio App.3d 770 (8th Dist. 2009) (disqualification is a final appealable order)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (record deficiencies mandate presumption of regularity)
- West v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2007-Ohio-76 (8th Dist. 2007) (omission of transcript requires presumption of regularity)
- Russell v. Mercy Hosp., 15 Ohio St.3d 37 (Ohio 1984) (transcript and record completeness essential to review)