The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion Tuesday reversing a lower court's dismissal of legal malpractice claims against an Ohio law firm and attorney, establishing new precedent for statute of limitations analysis in professional liability cases.
In *Stacy Cales v. Theisen Brock LPA*, the three-judge panel reversed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's grant of summary judgment that had barred plaintiffs' legal malpractice claim against attorney Kristopher Justice and the related vicarious liability claim against his law firm, Theisen Brock LPA.
The case involves plaintiffs Stacy Cales and Road to Recovery, LLC, who brought legal malpractice claims against Justice and his firm. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the statute of limitations barred the malpractice claim against Justice. As a result of that ruling, the court also dismissed the vicarious liability claim against Theisen Brock LPA.
Circuit Judge Danny Clay authored the opinion for the panel, which also included Circuit Judges Karen Nelson Moore and Helene White. The decision was recommended for publication pursuant to Sixth Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 32.1(b), indicating the court views the ruling as establishing precedent that will guide future cases.
The appeal arose from case number 2:23-cv-02997 in the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus, where Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura presided over the original proceedings. The case was argued before the Sixth Circuit on Dec. 9, 2025, and decided on Jan. 14, 2026.
Mark A. Ropchock of Slater & Zurz in Akron, Ohio, represented the appellants Cales and Road to Recovery, LLC. Patrick Kasson of Reminger Co., L.P.A. in Columbus argued for the appellees Theisen Brock LPA and Justice, with assistance from Austin Richards.
The reversal represents a significant victory for the plaintiffs, who can now proceed with their legal malpractice claims in district court. Legal malpractice cases typically require plaintiffs to prove that their attorney failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent attorney and that this failure caused damages.
Statute of limitations defenses are common in legal malpractice cases, as determining when a client discovered or should have discovered the alleged malpractice can be complex. The limitations period typically begins when the client knows or reasonably should know of the attorney's allegedly negligent conduct and the resulting harm.
The Sixth Circuit's decision to recommend the opinion for publication suggests the panel identified issues of first impression or clarified existing law in ways that will benefit future litigants and courts. Published opinions carry precedential weight and must be followed by district courts within the circuit and by future Sixth Circuit panels unless overruled by the Supreme Court or the circuit sitting en banc.
Vicarious liability claims against law firms typically succeed or fail alongside the underlying malpractice claims against individual attorneys. Under respondeat superior principles, law firms can be held liable for the professional negligence of their attorney employees acting within the scope of their employment.
The case highlights the complex timing issues that arise in legal malpractice litigation. Courts must carefully analyze when limitations periods begin to run, considering factors such as when clients reasonably discovered the alleged malpractice and whether any doctrines toll or extend the limitations period.
Road to Recovery, LLC's involvement as a plaintiff suggests the case may involve business or commercial legal services rather than traditional individual client representation. Business clients often have different considerations in malpractice cases, including potentially higher damages and more complex causation issues.
The reversal means the case will return to the district court for further proceedings. The defendants may still raise other defenses to the malpractice claims, and the plaintiffs will need to prove the elements of their case through discovery and potentially at trial.
For the legal profession in Ohio and other states within the Sixth Circuit, the decision provides guidance on statute of limitations analysis in malpractice cases. The published opinion will likely be cited in future cases involving similar timing issues.
The Sixth Circuit covers federal appeals from district courts in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Its decisions on legal malpractice law affect attorneys and clients throughout the region.
While the full reasoning behind the reversal is not detailed in the available excerpt, the decision to publish the opinion indicates the court addressed legally significant issues that extend beyond the immediate parties. The case demonstrates the ongoing evolution of professional liability law in federal court.