Case Title: Wilkins v. Sha'ste, Inc.

Citation: 2015-Ohio-477

Docket Number: 2013-1794

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Wilkins v. Sha’ste, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-477.] 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-477 
WILKINS, APPELLANT, v. SHA’STE, INC., APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Wilkins v. Sha’ste, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-477.] 
(No. 2013-1794—Submitted January 13, 2015—Decided February 11, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 99167, 2013-Ohio-3527. 
_______________________ 
{¶ 1} The cause is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and KENNEDY, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent. 
_________________ 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 2} As can happen, something we said in one context, where it made 
sense, is being applied in another context, where it does not.  In State ex rel. 
Citizens for Open, Responsive & Accountable Govt. v. Register, 116 Ohio St.3d 
88, 2007-Ohio-5542, 876 N.E.2d 913, ¶ 24, we stated that “an award of attorney 
fees as a sanction for a discovery violation must actually be incurred by the party 
seeking the award.”  In that case, there was an ongoing dispute involving 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
compensated attorneys, and an award of attorney fees made sense only if 
additional fees had actually been incurred.  Nothing in that opinion suggests that 
we were deciding the issue with respect to every situation involving discovery 
sanctions that might possibly arise in Ohio. 
{¶ 3} Legal services can be rendered in Ohio by legal interns, including, 
as here, those working for a law-school clinic.  Gov.Bar R. II.  In that special 
context, legal fees are not allowed.  Gov.Bar R. II(6) (“A legal intern shall not ask 
for or receive any compensation or remuneration of any kind from a financially 
needy client * * *.”)  
{¶ 4} The lower court’s opinion, as allowed to stand, holds that 
discovery sanctions can never be granted when the prevailing party is represented 
by a law-school clinic because attorney fees cannot be incurred by a clinic’s 
client.  Such a conclusion reads too much into Register, an opinion that had 
nothing to do with law-school clinics and legal interns.  Moreover, the holding 
allows parties to commit discovery violations with some level of impunity.  It is 
also contrary to Gov.Bar R. II(6), which states that a law-school clinic “may be 
awarded attorney fees for services rendered by the legal intern consistent with the 
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and as provided by law.”  Attorney fees as 
sanctions for discovery violations are attorney fees “provided by law.” 
{¶ 5} By dismissing the appeal as improvidently accepted, this court is 
implicitly endorsing a decision that allows attorneys opposing law-school clinics 
to commit discovery violations without fear of economic sanctions, subverting 
Gov.Bar R. II(6), and devaluing the efforts of hundreds of legal interns and 
licensed attorneys who provide pro bono legal services throughout this state. 
{¶ 6} I would reach the merits of the case before us and reverse the 
judgment of the court of appeals.  I dissent. 
FRENCH and O’NEILL, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
January Term, 2015 
3 
 
Milton A. Kramer Law Clinic, Case Western Reserve University School 
of Law, and Andrew S. Pollis, for appellant. 
Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., and Paul W. Flowers, urging reversal for 
amici curiae Cleveland Academy of Trial Attorneys and Ohio Association for 
Justice. 
Jones Day, David A. Kutik, Katie M. McVoy, and Chad A. Readler, 
urging reversal for amici curiae Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, Legal Aid 
Society of Greater Cincinnati, Legal Aid Society of Columbus, Legal Aid Society 
of Southwest Ohio, L.L.C., Legal Aid of Western Ohio, Inc., Advocates for Basic 
Legal Equality, Inc., Ohio State Legal Services Association, Southeastern Ohio 
Legal Services, Community Legal Aid Services, and Pro Seniors, Inc. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor, 
Michael Hendershot, Chief Deputy Solicitor, and Jeffrey Jarosch, Deputy 
Solicitor, urging reversal for amicus curiae state of Ohio. 
Hahn, Loeser & Parks, L.L.P., and Derek E. Diaz, urging reversal for 
amicus curiae Hahn, Loeser & Parks, L.L.P. 
Bolek Besser Glesius, L.L.C., and Matthew D. Besser, urging reversal for 
amicus curiae Bolek Besser Glesius, L.L.C. 
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P., and David C. Weiner, 
urging reversal for amicus curiae Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P. 
The Chandra Law Firm, L.L.C., and Subodh Chandra, urging reversal for 
amicus curiae the Chandra Law Firm, L.L.C. 
Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., and Stephen W. Funk, urging reversal for 
amicus curiae Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A. 
Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., Christopher S. Williams, and Mitchell 
G. Blair, urging reversal for amicus curiae Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P. 
Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., and Thomas D. Warren, urging reversal for 
amicus curiae Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., and Melissa L. Zujkowski, urging reversal for 
amicus curiae Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P. 
Thompson Hine, L.L.P., Kip T. Bollin, Stacey A. Greenwell, and Scott A. 
Campbell, urging reversal for amicus curiae Thompson Hine, L.L.P. 
Frantz Ward, L.L.P., Gregory R. Farkas, and Bradley D. Reed, urging 
reversal for amicus curiae Frantz Ward, L.L.P. 
_________________