Tobin v. Steptoe & Johnson, P.L.L.C.
2018 Ohio 2957
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- James M. Tobin sued Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC pro se in April 2017 alleging legal malpractice for its handling of a wrongful-death suit brought on behalf of his son, Bruce Tobin.
- Steptoe & Johnson had been retained in 2012 to evaluate and then prosecute the wrongful-death claim; it tried the case in the Court of Claims (four-day trial) and lost in February 2015.
- The firm timely filed a notice of appeal in March 2015, then moved to withdraw as appellate counsel; this court granted the withdrawal on March 18, 2015.
- A few days before withdrawal Tobin notified the firm he believed its attorneys committed malpractice and began drafting a complaint; afterward the firm provided no further services in the matter.
- Steptoe & Johnson moved for summary judgment arguing (1) Tobin’s claim was time-barred by the one-year malpractice statute of limitations, and (2) a law firm cannot be sued directly for malpractice absent naming individual attorneys; the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper | Tobin contends the court erred in granting summary judgment | Steptoe & Johnson argues (a) statute of limitations bars the claim, (b) firm cannot be directly liable for malpractice because no individual attorney was sued | Court affirmed summary judgment for Steptoe & Johnson on both independent grounds |
| Whether a law firm can be directly liable for legal malpractice | Tobin sued the firm (no individual attorneys named) seeking recovery for malpractice | Firm argues a law firm does not practice law and cannot be directly liable; vicarious liability requires an identified attorney at fault | Court held a law firm cannot be directly liable for malpractice; vicarious liability requires suing the responsible attorneys |
| When malpractice claim accrues for statute of limitations | Tobin’s suit filed April 28, 2017 (implied: timely) | Firm contends accrual occurred by March 18, 2015 (withdrawal) or when client suspected malpractice, triggering the one-year limitations period | Court held accrual occurred by March 18, 2015 (and Tobin had earlier communicated suspicion), so the one-year limitations period expired before filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594 (2009) (law firm cannot be directly liable for malpractice; firm may be vicariously liable for attorneys' malpractice)
- Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, 43 Ohio St.3d 54 (1989) (malpractice accrual when client discovers or should discover injury related to attorney act or when representation for that matter ends)
- Smith v. Conley, 109 Ohio St.3d 141 (2006) (R.C. 2305.11(A) one-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s burden in summary-judgment practice; must point to evidentiary materials showing absence of genuine issue)
- Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207 (1988) (definition of malpractice as failure to exercise degree of skill ordinary members of the profession employ)