## Facts

- Terry Vahila, James Vahila, and their insurance agency were investigated by the Ohio Department of Insurance and faced related administrative, criminal, and civil matters.
- They retained attorneys Charles D. Hall III, Ralph F. Dublikar, and their firm to represent them in those matters.
- The clients later alleged the attorneys negligently represented them by giving incorrect or incomplete advice about the proceedings and consequences.
- The clients alleged they were induced to accept plea bargains and settlement arrangements without adequate explanation of their effects.
- The clients claimed resulting harms including adverse criminal outcomes, licensing consequences, and financial losses.

## Issues

1. In a legal malpractice action, must a plaintiff always prove that, but for the attorney’s negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying proceeding (“case within a case”) to show proximate cause and damages at summary judgment?
2. Can a plaintiff defeat summary judgment by presenting evidence of other concrete, compensable injuries proximately caused by the alleged malpractice?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
- The court held there is no universal rule requiring malpractice plaintiffs in every case to prove they would have succeeded in the underlying matter.
- The court concluded the record contained evidence of specific injuries and causation sufficient to create genuine issues of material fact.
- Because reasonable minds could differ on proximate cause and damages, summary judgment for the attorneys was improper.

## Legal Principles

- Legal malpractice requires proof of: (1) an attorney-client relationship creating a duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) damages proximately caused by the breach.
- The “case within a case” method (showing the underlying matter would have been successful) is one permissible way to prove causation and damages, but not the exclusive way.
- Proximate cause and damages are fact-dependent; compensable injury may be shown through harms other than the loss of an otherwise winnable underlying claim, including adverse legal consequences and financial harm attributable to deficient legal advice or representation.
- At summary judgment, evidence of concrete injury linked to the alleged breach can suffice to require trial even if the plaintiff cannot establish that success in the underlying proceedings was more likely than not.

## Conclusion

Ohio law does not require a legal malpractice plaintiff in every case to prove that the underlying matter would have been won; where the plaintiff presents evidence of other specific damages proximately caused by the attorney’s alleged negligence, summary judgment should be denied and the case may proceed.


Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St. 3d 421, 674 N.E.2d 1164 (Ohio 1997)