Krahn v. Kinney, No. 88-386
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | HERBERT R. BROWN; MOYER |
| Citation | 538 N.E.2d 1058,43 Ohio St.3d 103 |
| Parties | KRAHN et al., Appellees, v. KINNEY et al., Appellants. |
| Docket Number | No. 88-386 |
| Decision Date | 24 May 1989 |
Page 103
v.
KINNEY et al., Appellants.
Decided May 24, 1989.
To state a cause of action for legal malpractice arising from criminal representation, a plaintiff must allege (1) an attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) damages proximately caused by the breach.
Appellees, Lynn B. Krahn and High Spirits, Inc. ("High Spirits"), brought a malpractice action against attorney Winfield E. Kinney III, and the law firm of Kinney & Coughlin Co., L.P.A., appellants. Since the trial court found that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, the facts upon which our decision is based are those stated in the complaint.
Herschel J. Shaffer and/or Shaffer Amusement Company (collectively referred to as "Shaffer") installed, serviced and maintained a Dwarf's Den Machine (a gambling device) in the High Spirits Lounge, a bar owned by High Spirits and managed by Lynn Krahn. Subsequently, Krahn was charged with three gambling offenses (two first degree misdemeanors and one minor misdemeanor) as the result of payments to players who had accumulated "credits" on the Dwarf's Den Machine. Further, the Ohio Department of Liquor Control issued a violation notice to High Spirits and confiscated the machine.
Shaffer told Krahn that he would retain a lawyer to represent her and High Spirits. The appellant, Winfield E. Kinney III, was retained. Shortly thereafter, Shaffer withdrew his offer to pay for legal assistance. Krahn and High Spirits then retained Kinney on their own. Neither Krahn nor High Spirits knew that Kinney was also representing the Shaffer Amusement Company in its efforts to recover the seized Dwarf's Den Machine.
During pretrial negotiations between Kinney and the prosecutor, the prosecutor offered to dismiss Krahn's charges in return for her willingness to testify against Shaffer. 1 Kinney did
Page 104
not communicate the offer to Krahn. In addition, and without Krahn's authorization, Kinney cancelled Krahn's request for a trial by jury.On the day of trial, Kinney recommended that Krahn withdraw her plea of not guilty [538 N.E.2d 1060] and enter a plea of guilty to a charge which he described as a minor misdemeanor. Krahn accepted Kinney's advice. The remaining counts were dismissed. Krahn later discovered she had pled guilty to a first degree misdemeanor and not to a minor misdemeanor.
Krahn then obtained different counsel who, upon discovering Kinney's failure to relate the prosecutor's first offer, filed a motion to vacate the judgment. The motion was denied. 2
Meanwhile, Kinney failed to appear at a hearing before the Ohio Liquor Control Commission ("commission") to defend the violation notice against High Spirits. As a result, the commission entered a default order requiring High Spirits to forfeit $2,100 or have its license suspended for twenty-one days. High Spirits employed new counsel. Pursuant to the new counsel's actions, the commission issued an amended order in which the penalty was reduced from twenty-one to fourteen days, and the forfeiture alternative from $2,100 to $1,400. 3
Krahn claims that, as a result of Kinney's conduct, she was convicted of a first degree misdemeanor, suffered the stigma of a criminal conviction involving moral turpitude, incurred damage to her good name and reputation, and suffered severe emotional distress. Krahn and High Spirits claim that, as a result of Kinney's conduct, they incurred extra legal fees and expenses. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the appellants and dismissed the complaint because (1) Krahn failed to set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted since she did not allege that her conviction had been vacated on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel (citing Weaver v. Carson [1979], 62 Ohio App.2d 99, 16 O.O.3d 225, 404 N.E.2d 1344), and (2) the denial of Krahn's motion to vacate the criminal judgment acted as res judicata to bar the determination of the issues raised in the attorney malpractice action.
The Court of Appeals for Montgomery County reversed the judgment of the trial court and found that the facts in the complaint were sufficient to state a claim. Finding its judgment to be in conflict with that of the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in Weaver v. Carson, supra, the court certified the record to this court for review and final determination.
Page 105
Jim Rimedio and Roger C. Stridsberg, Cincinnati, for appellees.
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, Michael E. Maundrell and Kerry L. Beringhaus, Cincinnati, for appellants.
HERBERT R. BROWN, Justice.
Two issues are presented. The first is whether the underlying criminal conviction must be reversed before a cause of action can be stated in a legal malpractice action arising from the representation of a criminal defendant. The second is whether the denial of Krahn's motion to vacate judgment operates as res judicata to bar a determination of the issues raised in this malpractice action. We answer both queries in the negative and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
In this case we consider an issue of first impression for this court, to wit: what are the elements required to state a cause of action for malpractice arising out of legal representation in criminal matters?
As a starting point, we note the requirements to establish a cause of action for legal malpractice relating to civil matters. These are: (1) an attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) damages proximately caused by the breach. See McInnis v. Hyatt Legal Clinics (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 112, 10 OBR 437, 461 N.E.2d 1295; Loveman v. Hamilton (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 183, [538 N.E.2d 1061] 20 O.O.3d 194, 420 N.E.2d 1007; Harter v. Morris (1869), 18 Ohio St. 493.
Appellants claim that where the malpractice arises from criminal representation, at least one additional element should be required. They claim that relief should not be granted unless the plaintiff first obtains a reversal of his or her conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Weaver v. Carson (1979), 62 Ohio App.2d 99, 16 O.O.3d 225, 404 N.E.2d
1344. 4
We reject the appellants' claim. Our holding is consistent with the resolution of the issue by other jurisdictions, most of which require the same elements of proof for all legal malpractice actions, whether arising from criminal or from civil representation. See, e.g., Jepson v. Stubbs (Mo.1977), 555 S.W.2d 307, 313-314; Mylar v. Wilkinson (Ala.1983), 435 So.2d 1237; Bowman v. Doherty (1984), 235 Kan. 870, 686 P.2d 112;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mashaney v. Bd. of Indigents' Def. Servs., No. 108,353
...444 Mich. 535, 548, 510 N.W.2d 900 (1994); Duncan v. Campbell, 123 N.M. 181, 186, 936 P.2d 863 (Ct. App. 1997); Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St. 3d 103, 105, 538 N.E.2d 1058 (1989). Finding the majority position persuasive, we adopted the "exoneration rule," which required "[a] person convicted......
-
Ang v. Martin, No. 74698-2.
...v. O'Rourke, 444 Mich. 535, 510 N.W.2d 900 (1994); Duncan v. Campbell, 123 N.M. 181, 936 P.2d 863 (Ct.App.1997); Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 538 N.E.2d 1058...
-
Wiley v. County of San Diego, No. S066034
...actual innocence is not a universal requirement. (See Gebhardt v. O'Rourke (1994) 444 Mich. 535, 510 N.W.2d 900; Krahn v. Kinney (1989) 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 538 N.E.2d 1058; see also Silvers v. Brodeur (Ind.Ct.App.1997) 682 N.E.2d 811.) 3 Those courts declining to require such proof generally......
-
Mashaney v. Bd. of Indigents' Def. Servs., No. 108,353.
...malpractice actions the same, such as Indiana and Ohio. See Godby v. Whitehead, 837 N.E.2d 146, 151 (Ind.App.2005); Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 105, 538 N.E.2d 1058 (1989). But the crisis does not appear to have materialized. Moreover, Kansas, among other states, requires that a cri......
-
Mashaney v. Bd. of Indigents' Def. Servs., No. 108,353
...444 Mich. 535, 548, 510 N.W.2d 900 (1994); Duncan v. Campbell, 123 N.M. 181, 186, 936 P.2d 863 (Ct. App. 1997); Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St. 3d 103, 105, 538 N.E.2d 1058 (1989). Finding the majority position persuasive, we adopted the "exoneration rule," which required "[a] person convicted......
-
Ang v. Martin, No. 74698-2.
...v. O'Rourke, 444 Mich. 535, 510 N.W.2d 900 (1994); Duncan v. Campbell, 123 N.M. 181, 936 P.2d 863 (Ct.App.1997); Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 538 N.E.2d 1058...
-
Wiley v. County of San Diego, No. S066034
...actual innocence is not a universal requirement. (See Gebhardt v. O'Rourke (1994) 444 Mich. 535, 510 N.W.2d 900; Krahn v. Kinney (1989) 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 538 N.E.2d 1058; see also Silvers v. Brodeur (Ind.Ct.App.1997) 682 N.E.2d 811.) 3 Those courts declining to require such proof generally......
-
Mashaney v. Bd. of Indigents' Def. Servs., No. 108,353.
...malpractice actions the same, such as Indiana and Ohio. See Godby v. Whitehead, 837 N.E.2d 146, 151 (Ind.App.2005); Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 105, 538 N.E.2d 1058 (1989). But the crisis does not appear to have materialized. Moreover, Kansas, among other states, requires that a cri......