Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ohio Court of Appeals Upholds Sanctions for Attorney’s Frivolous Conduct

Client Alert

On August 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District upheld a trial court’s order imposing frivolous conduct sanctions in the amount of $22,926.72 on a plaintiff’s attorney and his law firm in the case of Keith-Harper v. Lake Hosp. Sys., Inc., --- N.E.3d ----, 2017-Ohio-7361 (11th Dist. Lake).

The plaintiff, Linda Keith-Harper, filed a complaint asserting seven causes of action against Defendants, alleging that they had engaged in unlawful age discrimination, wrongful termination based on age discrimination, disability discrimination based on Keith-Harper's knee replacement, wrongful termination based on disability discrimination, unlawful FMLA retaliation, workers’ compensation retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

After the Court of Common Pleas for Lake County granted summary judgment on all of Keith-Harper’s claims, Defendants moved for an order imposing sanctions under Ohio’s frivolous conduct statute, R.C. 2323.51. Unlike a typical motion for sanctions, which may argue that a party’s allegations were frivolous from the onset, Defendants argued that Keith-Harper’s claims were rendered frivolous by the evidence adduced during the discovery process. Despite this evidence, Defendants had to incur additional fees and costs to litigate the case even after it was clear that Keith-Harper’s claims lacked any objective merit.

Granting Defendants’ motion for sanctions, the trial court agreed that by the time discovery had closed, “it was clear that there was no evidence that the plaintiff had requested or taken FMLA […] that she was disabled or perceived as disabled, […] that she was terminated for claiming workers’ compensation benefits that ended ten months earlier,” or that “she was directly targeted because of her age,” as “[t]he evidence showing she was terminated for just cause [was] overwhelming.” Because Keith-Harper’s attorneys failed to withdraw these claims after it became clear that they were not viable, the trial court awarded Defendants $22,926.72 for legal fees and costs incurred following the close of discovery. This sanction was imposed on Keith-Harper’s individual attorney and his law firm.

On appeal, Keith-Harper’s attorneys argued, among other things, that their conduct was not “frivolous” as a matter of law and that even if it was, the trial court erred by imposing joint and several liability against their law firm.

Affirming the trial court’s decision in a divided opinion, the Eleventh District adopted a deferential standard of review and drew several important distinctions between R.C. 2323.51 and its more well-known counterpart, Civ. R. 11. As an initial matter, the Court of Appeals recognized that unlike Civ. R. 11, which requires a finding of subjective bad faith before sanctions can be imposed, R.C. 2323.51 judges frivolous conduct under an objective standard “without inquiry as to what the individual knew or believed.” Recognizing that the statute provides several grounds for determining the frivolity of a claim or defense, the Court of Appeals also held that where a trial court finds that claims or defenses are factually frivolous (as opposed to legally frivolous) its determination that frivolous conduct took place will be affirmed so long as that decision is supported by competent, credible evidence. A decision that a claim is legally frivolous, on the other hand, is reviewed de novo. If the trial court makes a finding of frivolous conduct and proceeds to order an award of monetary sanctions, that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Because it found that the trial court’s detailed decision outlining the factual frivolity of Keith-Harper’s claims was supported by competent, credible evidence, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s finding of frivolous conduct. 

The Court of Appeals likewise rejected the argument that it was error to award sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 against a law firm. Citing to the statutory language that permits an award of sanctions against “a party, the party’s counsel of record, or both” the Court reasoned that unlike Civ. R. 11, which was drafted to impose responsibilities and sanctions on individual attorneys who have signed a pleading, R.C. 2323.51 was drafted more broadly to “afford an avenue of relief to a party adversely affected by frivolous conduct.” Acknowledging that several Ohio appellate courts have construed “counsel of record” to include an attorney’s firm as well as an individual lawyer, the Eleventh District affirmed the trial court’s decision to impose joint and several liability on Keith-Harper’s attorneys’ law firm.

The Eleventh District’s decision in Keith-Harper highlights an attorney’s obligation to reevaluate the merits of an asserted claim at each and every stage of litigation, and to pursue only those claims that have objective factual and legal merit. A party’s or her attorney’s failure to do so may result in a violation of R.C. 2323.51 and significant exposure to compensate an opponent for legal fees and costs.

Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC represented the Defendants in the trial and appellate courts, with BMD attorneys Christopher Congeni and Daniel Rudary briefing the case at the court of appeals and BMD attorney Daniel Rudary presenting oral argument in defense of the trial court’s sanctions award.

Valley National Bank/Trulieve Loan: A Big Step Out of the Shadows

In a late December press release, Trulieve announced that it had secured a $71.5 million commercial bank loan. In addition to the amount of the loan, which may be the largest commercial bank loan to date to a cannabis company, the release prominently identified Valley Bank and featured both a quote from Valley’s Senior Vice President, John Myers, and a description of the Bank’s service platform and commitment to the cannabis industry.

The End of Non-Competes? The Impact It Will Have on the Healthcare Industry

On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a proposed rule that, if enacted, will ban employers from entering into non-compete clauses with workers (the “Rule”), and the Rule would void existing non-compete agreements. In their Notice, the FTC stated that if the Rule were to go into effect, they estimate the overall earnings of employees in the United States could increase by $250 billion to $296 billion per year. The Rule would also require employers to rescind non-competes that they had already entered into with their workers. For purposes of the Rule, the FTC has defined “worker” to also include any employees, interns, volunteers, and contractors.”

2022 Healthcare Recap and 2023 Healthcare Check-Up

As the country begins to return to a new “normal” following the COVID-19 pandemic, there are many healthcare rules changing on both the federal and state levels as a result. Thus, it is important for healthcare providers and their employers to be aware of these changing rules, and any implications they may have on their practice. Look back on healthcare in 2022 and find a checklist for 2023.

Direct Support Professional Retention Payments

On December 15, the Ohio Senate and House passed House Bill 45, which authorizes the Department of Developmental Disabilities (DODD), in conjunction with the county boards of developmental disabilities, to launch their initiative to issue retention payments to Direct Support Professionals (DSPs). These retention payments will be distributed quarterly to participating home and community-based waiver providers to address the workforce crisis in the direct provider sector. Governor DeWine needs to sign the Bill to begin the payments, but he is expected to do so by the end of 2022.

Real Estate Investors Position for 2023 Opportunities

Real estate investors weathered another year in a post-pandemic world, with the year closing with yet another interest rate increase coupled with both uncertainty and heightened interest carrying into 2023. Just last Wednesday, the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate 0.50 percentage points, shifting the target range to 4.25% to 4.50%. The new level is the highest the fed funds rate has been since December 2007 and marks the seventh rate hike this year. So what does this mean to investors, brokers, lenders, and others in the real estate world? Read a few perspectives below from stakeholders familiar with our BMD clients and the markets in which they do business.