Court remands Legal Malpractice Case for Rehearing on Damages

Underlying Case

• Charge No. 846-2016-14799: Alleged racial discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC determined that PPG failed to properly maintain employment and personnel records, but it did not make a determination regarding the discrimination claim itself. On August 8, 2018, the EEOC issued a determination letter advising that any lawsuit must be filed within 90 days.
• Charge No. 523-2017-01148: Alleged racial and disability discrimination and retaliation. On November 6, 2018, the EEOC terminated its investigation without substantive findings because it could not complete the review within the statutory 180-day window, issuing a Notice of Right to Sue (NRTS) carrying a 90-day deadline.

• Untimely & Omitted Filings: On November 15, 2018, Davis-Williams filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio relating to the first charge—after the 90-day statutory window had already expired. The allegations from the second charge were omitted entirely.
• Complete Abandonment: Davis-Williams conducted no investigation, pursued no discovery, ignored PPG’s discovery requests, did not respond to a motion to compel, and ceased communicating with Reece.
• Office Closure: In January 2020, Davis-Williams closed his physical law practice and vacated his office without informing Reece, rarely checked his forwarding mail, and never moved to withdraw as counsel.
• Dismissal: PPG moved for summary judgment, which went unopposed. On April 29, 2020, the federal district court granted summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds. Reece only learned of the dismissal after directly contacting the court himself.

Procedural History

• Malpractice Complaint & Default Judgment: On August 6, 2020, Reece filed a legal malpractice action in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas against Attorney Davis-Williams and The Law Office of Spater & Davis-Williams. Neither defendant answered, resulting in a default judgment. Following an initial hearing that Davis-Williams failed to attend, the court awarded Reece $250,000 in damages ($125,000 per claim) plus costs.
• Civ.R. 60 Relief & Magistrate Award: In February 2022, Davis-Williams moved for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60. The parties entered into a stipulated agreed order establishing liability against Davis-Williams and the firm, setting the matter for a new hearing solely on damages. Following that hearing, the magistrate awarded Reece only a $15,000 “nuisance fee”.
• Trial Court Adoption: Reece filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, arguing the magistrate improperly required him to prove he would have succeeded in the underlying suit. The trial court overruled the objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision. Reece appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals.

Appellate Decision & Holding

1. Error in Applying the “Case-Within-a-Case” Standard: The appellate court held that the trial court erred by effectively forcing Reece into the strict “case-within-a-case” causation model (which requires proving the plaintiff would have won the underlying suit). Because Davis-Williams completely abandoned the case and failed to conduct discovery, the record was left “woefully incomplete,” making it virtually impossible for Reece to reconstruct what an untried case against an employer holding all the evidence would have yielded.
2. Application of the “Some-Evidence” Standard: Under Vahila v. Hall, when an attorney’s egregious neglect deprives the plaintiff of the ability to reconstruct or prosecute the case, the plaintiff only needs to present “some evidence” demonstrating the claims were at least colorable. Reece met this burden.
3. Valuation of Damages: The court noted that the proper measure of damages in such circumstances is the realistic lost value or settlement value of the claims. The evidence reflected that Davis-Williams had previously valued the claims at $90,000 to $125,000 each, and an expert witness valued them at up to $200,000 each (or half that in settlement value). The magistrate’s $15,000 nuisance fee improperly ignored this standard and punished the client for the evidentiary vacuum created by his attorney’s abandonment.

Comment: The opinion is well-reasoned. It effectively says to the defendant – Because you did not diligently prosecute the underlying case, we are going to resolve all doubts in favor of the plaintiff. In my opinion, the court came to the correct conclusion.

Ed Clinton, Jr.