Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamagesattorneyappealhearingtestimonypleamotionmalpracticelegal malpracticeprosecutorplea bargainappellant
plaintiffdefendantdamagesattorneyappealpleamotionmalpracticemisdemeanorlegal malpracticeappellantappellee

Related Cases

Gibson v. Trant, 58 S.W.3d 103
View Case »
Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal.App.4th 776, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 620, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4356, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5212
View Case »
Therrien v. Sullivan, 153 N.H. 211, 891 A.2d 560
View Case »
Gregori v. Bank of America, 207 Cal.App.3d 291, 254 Cal.Rptr. 853, 57 USLW 2481
View Case »
Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 108 L.Ed.2d 293, 58 USLW 4288
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 538 N.E.2d 1058

Facts

Lynn B. Krahn and High Spirits, Inc. retained attorney Winfield E. Kinney III to represent them in gambling-related charges. Kinney failed to communicate a plea bargain offer from the prosecutor that would have dismissed the charges against Krahn in exchange for her testimony against another party. Additionally, Kinney did not appear at a hearing for High Spirits, resulting in a default order against them. Krahn later pled guilty to a more serious charge than she believed she was accepting, leading her to seek new counsel and file a malpractice suit against Kinney.

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.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether a plaintiff must allege a reversal of their criminal conviction to state a legal malpractice claim arising from criminal representation, and whether the denial of a motion to vacate a criminal judgment operates as res judicata to bar a malpractice claim.

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.

Rule

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.

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.

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts of the case and determined that Krahn's allegations met the necessary elements for a legal malpractice claim. It rejected the appellants' argument that a reversal of the conviction was a prerequisite for the malpractice claim, emphasizing that the failure to communicate the plea offer constituted a breach of duty that caused damages. The court also clarified that the issues in the malpractice action were not the same as those in the criminal proceeding, thus not barred by res judicata.

The court analyzed the facts of the case and determined that Krahn's allegations met the necessary elements for a legal malpractice claim. It rejected the appellants' argument that a reversal of the conviction was a prerequisite for the malpractice claim, emphasizing that the failure to communicate the plea offer constituted a breach of duty that caused damages.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, allowing Krahn's malpractice claim to proceed. The court held that a plaintiff does not need to have their criminal conviction reversed to bring a legal malpractice action.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, allowing Krahn's malpractice claim to proceed. The court held that a plaintiff does not need to have their criminal conviction reversed to bring a legal malpractice action.

Who won?

Lynn B. Krahn and High Spirits, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that they had sufficiently stated a claim for legal malpractice based on the attorney's failure to communicate a plea offer and his failure to appear at a hearing.

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.

You must be