Busacca v. Maguire & Schneider, LLP
2005 Ohio 4215, 162 Ohio App.3d 689, 834 N.E.2d 856 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio law, a cause of action for legal malpractice accrues, and the one-year statute of limitations begins to run, on the later of two events: the date of a cognizable event that should have alerted the client to the injury, or the date the attorney-client relationship for that specific matter terminates.
Facts:
- Mary Jane Hahn hired attorneys Emery Leuchtag and Dennis Zapka to pursue a medical malpractice action on behalf of her husband, Fred Hahn.
- While the case was pending, Fred Hahn died, and his daughter, Sara Busacca, was appointed administrator of his estate.
- The attorneys' law firm dissolved in January 1997.
- The attorneys dismissed the medical malpractice action without prejudice on September 10, 1997, and never refiled it.
- On August 9, 1999, a former partner, Dennis Tackett, sent a letter to Mary Jane Hahn informing her that the firm had dissolved, the case had been dismissed in 1997, and that it could have been refiled within one year of that dismissal.
- After numerous unanswered phone calls, Sara Busacca sent a letter on October 16, 2000, stating, "I am advising you that my mother and I are hiring another attorney," but also demanded a status report and instructed the attorneys to call her.
- On February 21, 2001, Busacca sent a final letter that again stated they were hiring another attorney, but this time also demanded the return of the entire case file for a meeting with their "new attorney."
Procedural Posture:
- Sara Busacca and Mary Jane Hahn filed a legal malpractice action against Maguire & Schneider, LLP, and its attorneys in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas on November 13, 2001.
- The defendant attorneys (appellees) filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on January 24, 2003.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the intermediate appellate court.
- While the appeal was pending, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court, which was granted after the appellate court remanded the case for that purpose.
- Upon reconsideration, the trial court again granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on March 8, 2004.
- The plaintiffs appealed this second grant of summary judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a client's letter stating they are 'hiring another attorney,' while simultaneously demanding a status report, constitute an unambiguous, affirmative act that terminates the attorney-client relationship as a matter of law for the purpose of starting the statute of limitations for legal malpractice?
Opinions:
Majority - Nader, J.
No. A client's statement about hiring another attorney does not terminate the attorney-client relationship as a matter of law when the communication is ambiguous and also requests the current attorneys to perform additional work. The termination of an attorney-client relationship is a question of fact. In this case, there are genuine issues of material fact as to when the relationship terminated. First, the attorney's claim that he terminated the relationship via a phone call in 1997 is directly contradicted by the client's affidavit. Second, the October 2000 letter is ambiguous; it could be interpreted as an affirmative act of termination or as a threat intended to provoke a response. A trier of fact could reasonably compare the October 2000 letter, which still demanded a status report, with the more definitive February 2001 letter, which demanded the return of the file, and conclude the former was not a final termination. Because reasonable minds could differ on the date of termination, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Concurring - Grendell, J.
No. I agree with the majority but write separately to emphasize that the August 1999 letter from attorney Tackett was insufficient as a matter of law to terminate the relationship or to serve as a cognizable event. An attorney has an ethical duty to give clear, unequivocal notice of withdrawal to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the client. Tackett's cryptic statement that the lawsuit "could have been re-filed" within a year was not adequate to inform laypersons that their case was now permanently barred by the statute of limitations. An attorney cannot benefit from neglect or avoidance of a client and cannot string a client along after committing malpractice to let the statute of limitations expire.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes that the termination of an attorney-client relationship, a critical event for starting the legal malpractice statute of limitations, is a fact-intensive inquiry that often cannot be decided on summary judgment. It establishes that a client's expression of intent to hire new counsel, when coupled with requests for continued performance, is too ambiguous to constitute termination as a matter of law. This ruling protects clients by preventing attorneys from seizing on ambiguous, frustrated communications to argue for an early termination date. It reinforces the principle that any ambiguity regarding the termination of the professional relationship will likely be resolved in favor of the client, preserving their day in court.
