2012 Ohio 3876
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Yates hired Barilla to represent her in a divorce; a divorce decree was entered June 14, 2007.
- Yates filed a legal malpractice suit against Barilla in June 2008; dismissed without prejudice May 2009; refiled May 20, 2010.
- Barilla moved for summary judgment on three bases: lack of expert to opine breach, no breach below standard of care, and no damages evidence.
- Trial court granted Barilla’s summary judgment on July 27, 2011.
- Yates appeals asserting she was not required to retain an expert; the appellate court reviews de novo and follows Dresher, Haas, and related standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is expert testimony required to prove legal malpractice here? | Yates argues expert testimony is unnecessary. | Barilla argues expert testimony is required to show breach and causation. | No; expert testimony required. |
| Did Yates fail to create a genuine issue of material fact without an expert? | Yates contends causation and breach are within lay knowledge. | Barilla contends reciprocal Dresher burden unmet without expert. | Yes, summary judgment proper; lack of expert defeats claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (establishes Dresher burden for summary judgment in civil actions)
- Haas v. Bradley, 2005-Ohio-4256 (9th Dist.) (expert opinion required unless breach obvious or within lay knowledge)
- Yates v. Brown, 2010-Ohio-35 (9th Dist.) (reiterates need for expert in multi-attorney malpractice cases when causation is at issue)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (summary judgment standard and burden of proof)
- Viock v. Stowe–Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7 (6th Dist.) (standard for reviewing summary judgment in Ohio)