NAILAH K.

BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Court of Appeals

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
November 30,2018 12:43

By: JOHN T. MCLANDRICH 0021494

Confirmation Nbr. 1563230

STATE OF OHIO, EX. REL., BRIAN J. ESSI CA 16 104659

vs.
Judge:
CITY OF LAKEWOOD, OHIO

Pages Filed: 3

Electronically Filed 11/30/2018 12:43/FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 16 104659 / Confirmation Nbr. 1563230 / CLSXN
 IN THE COURT OF IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel, BRIAN J. ESSI, ) CASE NO.: CA-16-104659

)
Relator, )
) RESPONDENT CITY OF
vs. ) LAKEWOOD’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
) TO MCGOWN & MARKLING CO..
CITY OF LAKEWOOD, ) L.P.A.’S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN
) ORDER TO ASSERT AN ATTORNEY’S
Respondent ) CHARGING LIEN

Now comes Respondent, City of Lakewood (“Respondent”), by and through counsel, and

hereby respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny Intervenor McGown & Markling Co.,

L.P.A.’s Motion to Intervene in Order to Assert an Attorney’s Charging Lien. McGown &

Markling Co., L.P.A (“Intervenor”) seeks to assert an attorney’s charging lien upon any

prospective judgment in this case, including any settlement funds or applicable proceeds that may

be paid by Respondent. However, as Intervenor acknowledges, any potential funds or proceeds

are still prospective. No such fund exists and whether any settlement or other proceeds may exist

in the future is still to be determined, therefore, Intervenor’s motion is premature.

Under Ohio common law, an attorney who obtains a judgment or other monies for his client

through his services can assert a charging lien against the fund obtained. Slater v. Ohio Dept, of

Rehab. And Correction, 2018-Ohio-1475, ^[26 (10th Dist., 2018); citing Kisling, Nestico & Redick,
LLC v. Progressive Max Ins. Co., 8th Dist. No. 105287, 2017-0hio-8064, Tfl3. Ohio courts

generally enforce a charging lien against a monetary judgment awarded to a client after an attorney

successfully litigated a case on the client’s behalf. Slater, at Tf28. Ohio courts acknowledge, under

the appropriate circumstances, an attorney may recover on a charging lien even if the client

Electronically Filed 11/30/2018 12:43 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 16 104659 / Confirmation Nbr. 1563230 / CLSXN
 discharged the attorney prior to the creation of the fund from which the attorney seeks payment.

Id.

However, whether attained by judgment or settlement, a fund must exist for a charging

lien to arise. Id. at \29. (Emphasis added). “Under Ohio law, an attorney cannot have a charging

lien on a client’s cause of action.” Id. “Rather, an attorney can only assert a charging lien after a

judgment, settlement, or other fund-creating event. Id. citing Ruttman v. Flores, 8th Dist. No.

66079,1994 WL 677539 (Dec. 1,1994). “Without.. .a judgment or fund, there can be no attorney

charging lien, as there is nothing upon which to attach this lien and any argument over the legal

aspects of that lien become moot.” Id.

Here, Intervenor acknowledges that any fund, either settlement or other applicable

proceeds, is prospective. Based on Slater, no fund or judgment exists so there is nothing for any

charging lien to attach. As a result, the merits related to Intervenor’s efforts or contribution to any

potential settlement or proceeds are moot. Therefore, Respondent respectfully requests that the

Court deny Intervenor’s Motion to Intervene in Order to Assert an Attorney’s Charging Lien.

Respectfully submitted,

MAZANEC, RASKIN & RYDER CO., L.P.A.

/s/John T. McLandrich_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
JOHN T. MCLANDRICH (0021494)
TERRY L. WILLIAMS (0081363)
100 Franklin’s Row
34305 Solon Road
Cleveland, OH 44139
(440) 248-7906
(440) 248-8861 -Fax
Email: imclandrich@mrr1aw.com
twilliams@mrrlaw. com

Counsel for Respondent City of Lakewood

Electronically Filed 11/30/2018 12:43 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 16 104659 / Confirmation Nbr. 1563230 / CLSXN
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing Respondent City of Lakewood's Brief in Opposition to Respond

to MCGown & Markling Co., L.P.A.’s Motion to Intervene in Order to Assert an Attorney’s

Charging Lien was filed electronically and served November 30, 2018 to all registered parties by

operation of the Court's electronic filing system to:

Marc Dann, Esq. Matthew John Markling, Esq.

Donna Taylor-Kolis, Esq. Patrick Vrobel, Esq.
The Dann Law Firm Co., LPA John T. Sulik, Jr., Esq.
P.O. Box 6031040 McGown & Markling Co., LPA
Cleveland, OH 44103 1894 North Cleveland-Massillon Road
Email: mdann@dannlaw.com Akron, OH 44333
Attorneys for Relator State of Ohio, ex rel, Email: mmark1ing@mcgownmark1ing.com
Brian J. Essi pvrobel@mcgownmark1ing.com
i sulik@mcgownmarkling.com
Attorneys for Intervenor

/s/John T. McLandrich_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
JOHN T. MCLANDRICH (0021494)
TERRY L. WILLIAMS (0081363)

Counsel for Respondent City of Lakewood

TRID-160233/Rspndt MFL to Responde To Mot to Intervene

Electronically Filed 11/30/2018 12:43 / FILING OTHER THAN mOtION / CA 16 104659 / Confirmation Nbr. 1563230 / CLSXN