In Gaffin v. Haslam, 2024-Ohio-2117, a unanimous panel on the Fourth District Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff’s legal malpractice claims were untimely pursuant to the legal malpractice statute of repose, R.C. 2305.117. This case marks one of the first appellate decisions upholding and applying the legal malpractice statute of repose and was handled by Reminger attorneys Holly Marie Wilson and Brianna M. Prislipsky. The statute, enacted in June of 2021, provides that any legal malpractice claim must be filed within four years of the underlying actions that give rise to the claim, regardless of when the alleged malpractice is discovered.
The case arose from allegations that the defendant attorney rendered negligent legal services to the plaintiff in 2015 and 2016 after criminal charges were filed against the plaintiff. The criminal matter proceeded to trial, where the plaintiff was found guilty and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences in June 2016.
In May 2023, the plaintiff filed suit against his former attorney, bringing claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice arising from that criminal matter. The defendant attorney filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that the legal malpractice statute of repose barred plaintiff’s claims, as they were filed more than four years after the underlying representation took place. The trial court granted that motion, and the plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly granted the defendant attorney’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, relying in part upon the legal malpractice statute of repose. First, the appellate court found that the plaintiff’s claims, including his claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, were legal malpractice claims, as they arose out of the defendant attorney’s representation. The Court of Appeals then applied the legal malpractice statute of repose, noting that it “allows a defendant to be free from liability after a specifically determined time and it does not matter whether the plaintiff has discovered the injury or basis for the claim.” Thus, while the plaintiff alleged that he did not learn of the alleged malpractice until March 2023, the Court of Appeals held that the legal malpractice statute of repose nonetheless barred the plaintiff’s claim.
As noted above, this decision marks one of the first appellate court decisions applying the legal malpractice statute of repose since its enactment in 2021. Given that the statute of repose applies regardless of whether a plaintiff’s claim has vested or not, it provides a potent tool for litigants, as the statute is solely concerned with the amount of time that has passed from the date of the alleged malpractice.
If you have any questions about this opinion or its impact on current or future litigation, please contact a member of Reminger’s Professional Liability or Appellate Practice Group.
Attorneys
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Cincinnati
Toledo
Dayton