Bloom v. Dieckmann
| Decision Date | 26 October 1983 |
| Citation | 11 Ohio App.3d 202,464 N.E.2d 187 |
| Parties | , 11 O.B.R. 298 BLOOM, Appellee, v. DIECKMANN, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Expert evidence is required in a legal malpractice action to establish the attorney's breach of duty of care except in actions where the breach or lack thereof is so obvious that it may be determined by the court as a matter of law, or is within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laymen.
Bloom & Greene and Michael D. Eagen, Cincinnati, for appellee.
Dugan & James and Richard T. Dugan, Cincinnati, for appellant.
This cause came on to be heard upon an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County.
This timely appeal follows the trial court's granting of appellee's motion for summary judgment on the complaint and counterclaim filed in the action below. The record reveals the following:
In May 1981 appellant, Herbert W. Dieckmann, employed appellee, Milton M. Bloom, to represent him in a divorce action. Appellant terminated appellee's employment in February 1982; he was granted a divorce decree sometime later. On May 10, 1982, appellee filed suit against appellant for the recovery of attorney's fees. Appellant filed an answer and counterclaim alleging legal malpractice. On October 12, 1982, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by a supporting affidavit. Appellant filed an opposing memorandum and affidavit. Following a hearing, the trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the counterclaim.
The first assignment of error states:
"The trial court erred as a matter of law in granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment when there were disputed matters between the parties."
On appeal appellant's arguments have been essentially limited to his malpractice claim. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was supported by an affidavit expressing his professional opinion as an attorney that "all legal services rendered by me to the defendant * * * were done so in a diligent, careful and prudent manner and in such a manner which conformed to the highest degree of legal care and professionalism." Appellant did not offer any expert testimony on the issue of appellee's competency either in support of his memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment or at the hearing on the motion. Instead, he presented an opposing affidavit expressing his opinion as a layman which contained general allegations concerning appellee's negligence. 1 Appellee contends that as a result of appellant's failure to present expert opinion there was no issue of fact to be resolved and summary judgment was properly granted.
The question whether expert opinion is necessary to support a claim of legal malpractice is one of first impression in Ohio. The issue, however, has been considered by a number of other jurisdictions. As stated in Annotation (1982), 14 A.L.R.4th 170, 173:
" * * * [I]t now appears to be the rule that expert evidence is required in a legal malpractice case to establish the attorney's breach of his duty of care except in cases where the breach or lack thereof is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barstow v. Waller, 2004 Ohio 5746 (OH 10/26/2004)
...and experience of the jury. McInnis v. Hyatt Legal Clinics (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 112, 113, 461 N.E.2d 1295; Bloom v. Dieckmann (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 202, 203, 464 N.E.2d 187. See, also Riley v. Clark (Nov. 10, 1999), Scioto App. No. 98CA2629. An affidavit from the defendant attorney is a l......
-
Nelson v. Bricker & Eckler LLP (In re D8 2010 Inc.), Case No. 09-35789
...may be determined by the court as a matter of law, or is within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laymen." Bloom v. Dieckmann, 464 N.E.2d 187, 188 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983); Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sharp, 940 F. Supp. 2d 569, 578 (N.D. Ohio 2013) (citing Kreuzer v. Merritt, 18442, 2000 ......
-
Applegate v. Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt
...This is also the law in Ohio. McInnis v. Hyatt Legal Clinics, 10 Ohio St.3d 112, 461 N.E.2d 1295 (1984); Bloom v. Dieckmann, 11 Ohio App.3d 202, 464 N.E.2d 187 (1983). Both Ohio and the District of Columbia recognize the "common knowledge" exception to the general rule that a legal malpract......
-
Roberts v. Hutton
...knowledge and experience of laymen. State v. Buell (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 124, 22 OBR 203, 489 N.E.2d 795; Bloom v. Dieckmann (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 202, 203, 11 OBR 298, 464 N.E.2d 187. Finally, an affidavit from the defendant or acting attorney can suffice as a legally sufficient basis upo......