Walters v. Royer
765 F.Supp.2d 1006, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18379, 2011 WL 652466 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio law, the one-year statute of limitations for a legal malpractice action begins on the later of two dates: when the client discovers the injury, or when the attorney-client relationship terminates. The filing of a bar grievance does not, as a matter of law, constitute a clear and unambiguous termination of the attorney-client relationship; its effect on the relationship is a question of fact for the jury.
Facts:
- Paul Walters hired attorney George Royer to prosecute several patent applications, beginning in 2001.
- Royer failed to timely prosecute the applications but represented to Walters that they had been properly filed.
- On May 6, 2009, Walters learned from the Patent and Trademark Office that Royer had not properly prosecuted the applications.
- On that same day, Walters filed a grievance against Royer with the Toledo Bar Association, but indicated on the form that Royer had not been dismissed.
- In late June and early July 2009, Royer communicated with Walters, offering to complete an amendment for one of the patents at no charge to prevent its abandonment.
- On July 15, 2009, Walters sent Royer a letter demanding that he 'cease any efforts to file this patent.'
- On July 23, 2009, Walters sent letters to the Patent and Trademark Office informing them that Royer no longer represented him on any filings.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 9, 2010, Plaintiff Paul Walters filed a legal malpractice action against Defendant George Royer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- Royer filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, claiming the action was barred by Ohio's one-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court converted the motion into a Motion for Summary Judgment.
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 filing of a grievance with a bar association against their attorney automatically terminate the attorney-client relationship as a matter of law for the purpose of commencing the one-year statute of limitations for a legal malpractice claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Zouhary, J.
No. The filing of a bar grievance against an attorney does not automatically terminate the attorney-client relationship as a matter of law. Whether the filing of a grievance serves to terminate the relationship is a question of fact dependent on the totality of the circumstances. The court reasoned that termination requires a 'clear and unambiguous' affirmative act. While a grievance demonstrates a loss of confidence, it is not necessarily a definitive act of termination, especially when subsequent conduct suggests the relationship continued. Here, factors such as the parties' continued communication regarding the patent work after the grievance, Royer's offer to perform remedial work, and Walters' own notation on the grievance form that Royer had not been dismissed create a genuine issue of material fact as to when the relationship ended. Therefore, a reasonable jury could find the relationship terminated either with the grievance in May or the explicit letters in July, precluding summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that under Ohio law, a client's formal expression of dissatisfaction, such as filing a bar grievance, does not create a per se or automatic termination of the attorney-client relationship for statute of limitations purposes. The ruling moves the analysis away from a bright-line rule and towards a more fact-intensive inquiry focusing on the parties' objective conduct and communications. This places a higher burden on defendant-attorneys seeking summary judgment on timeliness grounds, as they must demonstrate an act of termination that is so unambiguous that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.
