Login | March 28, 2024

11th District: Legal malpractice was ‘obvious’ in false marriage case

TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter

Published: May 22, 2017

An expert was not required to support legal malpractice claims in a Trumbull County false marriage case because malpractice is obvious, the 11th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.

Matthew Paldino filed a professional tort complaint in 2014 against attorneys Robert L. Johnson and Benjamin Joltin for malpractice, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, intentional emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.

According to appellate court records, the claims against Johnson stem from his actions or inactions in Latimer v. Paldino. In that case, Paldino was seeking damages from cohabitation and false marriage representations.

Paldino was sued by Latimer after she stopped living with him. The value of the mortgage other property was in dispute.

Paldino retained Johnson for $1,500. Johnson claimed he gave competent legal representation. However, Paldino argued Johnson should have filed a counterclaim for the value of the cars, which Latimer took when she left the property.

Paldino also said Johnson did not conduct discovery, did not file a motion for summary judgment, did not prepare him for trial, did not offer any exhibits, did not make a closing argument, did not file an objection to a magistrate’s 2012 decision, did not file an appeal, did not properly communicate with him and failed to tell him he had been suspended from practicing law.

Joltin handled the appeal from a denial of a motion for reconsideration in Latimer v. Paldino.

Paldino said Joltin met with him and Johnson in 2014, and intentionally withheld the fact that Johnson had been suspended from practicing law. In addition, Joltin accepted $650 to handle the appeal but did not file an appellate brief, and filed a flawed motion for reconsideration.

In February 2016, Paldino filed a motion for summary judgment against Johnson and Joltin, who also filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Johnson and Paldino appealed.

Joltin noted that both he and Johnson submitted an expert report from an attorney who determined there was no legal practice on either lawyer’s part.

Paldino claimed the court improperly denied his motion because he did not present his own expert witness to establish legal malpractice.

However, the appellate court found the trial court erred by denying Paldino summary judgment.

On remand, the trial court must review the summary judgment motions without the requirement of a legal expert witness and hold further hearings on the damages issue.

“This matter reveals an extensive disciplinary record as well as Johnson’s and Joltin’s errors,” 11th District Judge Colleen Mary O’Toole stated in her 3-0 opinion.

“… One of the arguments that Johnson had made was that there was no causal connection between the damages to Paldino and Johnson’s wrongful conduct. However, Paldino posits that if Johnson, either at trial, in an objection to the magistrate’s decision, or in the Civ.R. 60(B) motion, would have properly prepared, submitted, and informed the court that there was in fact an outstanding balance on a mortgage at the time Latimer left the property, Paldino’s liability would have been reduced by some $40,000.”

Judge O’Toole added that it should have been obvious to the trial court that Joltin’s actions constituted malpractice as well because he charged Paldino $650 for an appeal that he knew or should have known was not going to win.

“In his appellate brief, Paldino stresses: `Joltin, therefore, represented to Paldino that he was attempting to correct the errors of Johnson, when he was actually wasting Paldino’s time and money,’ ” Judge O’Toole wrote.

Appellate judges Diane V. Grendell and Cynthia Westcott Rice concurred.

The case is cited Paldino v. Johnson, 2017-Ohio-2727.


[Back]