 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sirkin v. McBurrows12/3/1999
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
OPINION.
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Appeal Dismissed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 3, 1999
Plaintiffs-appellants Alan L. Sirkin and Steven E. Yuhas have taken the instant appeal from five separate judgment entries, by which the trial court either granted a motion by the appellees for a protective order or denied a motion by the appellants for an order compelling disclosure or an in camera inspection of allegedly privileged material. The appellants advance on appeal three assignments of error. We do not, however, reach the merits of the challenges presented on appeal, because none of the entries from which the appellants have appealed is a final order.
In 1994, defendants-appellants Rodney and Barbara McBurrows retained attorneys Sirkin and Yuhas under contingent-fee agreements to pursue on their behalf a personal-injury claim. The McBurrowses subsequently discharged Sirkin and Yuhas and, in May of 1997, retained attorneys Sylvan P. Reisenfeld and Alan J. Statman to represent them on the claim.
While represented by Reisenfeld and Statman, the McBurrowses settled their claim. The settlement prompted Sirkin, in October of 1997, and Yuhas, by amendment of Sirkin's complaint in June of 1998, to file an action against the McBurrowses, Reisenfeld and Statman, and the law firm of Reisenfeld & Statman, L.P.A., seeking recompense for their professional efforts on behalf of the McBurrowses on the claim.
On December 30, 1997, Sirkin filed the first in what would become a series of motions, through which the parties would play out their struggle over the discovery of matters contained in Reisenfeld and Statman's file on the McBurrowses' personal-injury claim. In his initial motion, Sirkin sought an order compelling Reisenfeld and Statman's production of the file. Reisenfeld and Statman resisted compelled production of the file with a motion seeking a protective order. In support of the motion, they asserted that the matters contained in the file were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Alternatively, they argued that the matters contained in the file were not discoverable, because the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Reid, Johnson, Downes, Andrachik & Webster v. Lansberry (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 570, 629 N.E.2d 431, which limits the recovery of a discharged contingent-fee attorney to quantum meruit, rendered the file's contents irrelevant. By entry dated February 11, 1998, the trial court granted the protective order upon its determination that the matters sought to be discovered were protected by the attorney-client privilege.
In February of 1998, Sirkin submitted to Reisenfeld and Statman his second and third sets of interrogatories and requests for the production of documents, and in March and May of that year, he filed motions seeking orders compelling responses to his discovery requests. On June 22, 1998, with reference to its February 11 protective order, the trial court denied Sirkin's motions.
Two weeks later, Sirkin filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the February 11 protective order and the June 22 entry denying his motion to compel or, alternatively, an in camera inspection of the case file, with an order compelling production of the file's non-privileged communications. By entry dated July 24, 1998, the trial court denied the motion.
Finally, in September of 1998, Sirkin and Yuhas moved for an in camera inspection and an order compelling disclosure of the non-privileged matters sought in a flurry of interrogatories and requests for admissions and the production of documents submitte
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|