McInnis v. Hyatt Legal Clinics
| Decision Date | 18 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-449,83-449 |
| Citation | 10 Ohio St.3d 112,10 OBR 437,461 N.E.2d 1295 |
| Parties | , 10 O.B.R. 437 McINNIS, Appellee, v. HYATT LEGAL CLINICS et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Donald C. Williams, Cleveland, for appellee.
Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, Burt J. Fulton and Thomas E. Dover, Cleveland, for appellants.
Appellants argue that an attorney cannot commit legal malpractice when he complies with the notice provision of R.C. 3105.06, which pertains to service by publication.
An attorney may not be held liable for malpractice in doing that which the law requires in obtaining service of process. However, he is liable for effecting publication of appellee's pending divorce, which was contrary to the specific instructions of his client and the written assurance. This is especially vital where there was no further discussion with the client about the publication. As the court of appeals correctly stated, "[w]hen the defendant attorney elected to cause publication notice of the pendency of the instant divorce, without notice to his client, he disobeyed the lawful instruction of his client, breached the terms of his employment agreement, and is culpable to the extent of losses following from his breach and acts." (Emphasis sic.)
In this latter regard, we point out that EC 7-8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: * * * "
Appellants further contend that there was an absence of expert testimony presented on the issue of malpractice and a cause of action is not set forth without such testimony. Generally, expert testimony would be required in regard to professional standards of performance. However, within the limited claim of unprofessional conduct complained of in the case sub judice, we do not deem such expert testimony to have been necessary. Here, the claimed breach of professional duty is well within the common understanding of the laymen on the jury.
Although the damages flowing from such alleged malpractice would seem to be nominal at best, it is conceivable that a jury, with appropriate instructions from the trial court, could find an amount of damages proximately caused by the attorney's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barstow v. Waller, 2004 Ohio 5746 (OH 10/26/2004)
...care, unless the breach is such that it comes within the ordinary knowledge 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......
-
In re Dow, Bankruptcy No. 2-88-05047
...caused by the breach. Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 105, 538 N.E.2d 1058, 1059 (1989) (citing McInnis v. Hyatt Legal Clinics, 10 Ohio St.3d 112, 461 N.E.2d 1295 (1984); Loveman v. Hamilton, 66 Ohio St.2d 183, 420 N.E.2d 1007 (1981)). If these three elements were present at the time th......
-
Nelson v. Bricker & Eckler LLP (In re D8 2010 Inc.), Case No. 09-35789
...also Dimacchia v. Burke, 904 F.2d 36, 1990 U.S. App. Lexis, at *2 (6th Cir. June 7, 1990) (table decision) and McInnis v. Hyatt Legal Clinics, 461 N.E.2d 1295, 1297 (Ohio 1984). An attorney's role as to the client is fiduciary in nature. Tonwe v. Harris-Miles (In re Harris-Miles), 187 B.R. ......
-
Hanick v. Ferrara
...the Supreme Court generally requires expert testimony on the professional standards of performance. McInnis v. Hyatt Legal Clinics , 10 Ohio St.3d 112, 113, 461 N.E.2d 1295 (1984) ; Bruni v. Tatsumi , 46 Ohio St.2d 127, 130, 346 N.E.2d 673 (1976). Although not considered malpractice, the Co......