Attorneys for Cincinnati’s Gang of Five informed us today that Wendell Young and Tamaya Dennard have destroyed text messages responsive to our public records and discovery requests. Dennard claims to have accidentally dropped her phone in a swimming pool and Young simply and intentionally deleted his text messages.

 

It is our understanding that the messages were destroyed after we filed suit and submitted discovery requests seeking the text messages.  City attorneys were informed over a week ago about this issue, but chose to remain silent until today.

Within the context of Ohio’s Public Records law, destruction of public records is punished by a forfeiture of $1,000 per record. Within the discovery context, sanctions include a finding of contempt of court, fines, and in extreme instances, jail time.

City lawyers claim that they are working to recover the messages if possible, but that leaves questions as to why they represented to the Court of Appeals just yesterday that they had turned over all of the text messages.

Finney Law Firm will also explore removal from office as a potential sanction for Young and Dennard.

A living will is a legal document that allows patients to provide healthcare providers with an outline of their wishes in the event they become incapacitated and unable to communicate their wishes themselves. The document often contains a provision for a person to be designated as healthcare power of attorney. This individual can speak on the patient’s behalf if he or she cannot do so.

Kentucky has specific living will laws as outlined in the Kentucky Living Will Directive Act. These are some of the highlights of this important law.

Legal requirements for a living will to be valid

In Kentucky, a valid living will must have four components:

  • The creator of the will (the testator) is an adult with testamentary capacity.
  • The living will is created in writing and is appropriately signed and dated.
  • The signing of the will must be witnessed by two or more unrelated adults in the presence of each other and the will creator (or acknowledged by a notary).
  • The document is in essentially the same form as outlined in Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 311.625.

Revoking a living will

Living wills are revocable in the same way that traditional wills are. Methods of revocation include:

  • A written declaration of revocation, signed and dated by the testator
  • An oral statement of an intent to revoke in the presence of at least two adults, one being a healthcare provider
  • Destruction of the existing living will with the intent to revoke it

Revocation is effective immediately. This action overrides any previous written healthcare directives.

It’s worth noting that healthcare providers may follow living wills or advance directives created outside of Kentucky, so long as those directives are consistent with generally accepted medical practices. If a doctor cannot follow the instructions of the living will, he or she must inform the patient and the family, and cannot impede transferring the patient to a healthcare facility or doctor who can comply with the instructions.

About Finney Law Firm, LLC

Founded in 2014, FLF has grown to 15 attorneys located in offices in Eastgate and downtown Cincinnati with five major practice areas: Corporate Law, Real Estate Law, Employment Law, Commercial Litigation and Public Interest and Constitutional Litigation.  FLF has the unique claim to three 9-0 victories at the United States Supreme Court for its public interest practice along with breakthrough class action work.

FLF also has an affiliated title insurance company, Ivy Pointe Title, LLC, that closes and insures nearly a thousand commercial and residential real estate transactions annually.

For more information about Finney Law Firm, visit finneylawfirm.com.

Media Contact: Mickey McClanahan; [email protected]; 513.797.2850.

 

Attorneys for the City of Cincinnati today gave the Court of Appeals copies of the text messages responsive to our April 9, 2018 public records request.

Our request seeks communications between members of the self-proclaimed “Gang of Five” (Councilmembers Landsman, Sittenfeld, Dennard, Seelbach, and Young) and any other council member related to the official business of the City of Cincinnati between March 16 and March 18, 2018 (the days the two Gang of Five press releases were put out); and their communications with any other councilmember from March 1 to March 19, 2018 relating to or regarding Harry Black or John Cranley.

Gang of Five member Greg Landsman

The production to the Court will remain under seal until the Court determines which, if any, of the text messages are public records pursuant to Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.

The Gang of Five argues that because the messages were sent and received using their personal phones, they cannot be considered public records, no matter their content.

In addition to the in camera production, the parties submitted joint stipulations of fact and law to aid the Court’s review. Read the stipulations below or on scribd here.

Notably, the Gang of Five admits to texting other councilmembers about John Cranley and Harry Black during City Council meetings; and that some of these text messages have not been produced in response to our public records request.

We will file a motion for summary judgment by next Monday, the Gang of Five will have one week to oppose our motion, and we will file our reply memo a week after that. Once fully briefed, the case will be set for decision by a three judge panel. We are hopeful that the case will be decided by early January.

Read the Complaint here.

[scribd id=393632777 key=key-L6J2EJpwn01xoHYGWoqM mode=scroll]

Written By: Todd V. McMurtry

We do everything in our power to make our clients happy! Our services will increase your bottom line! Big or small, we handle it all! As a professional, your personal website or company page is an essential link for those seeking or already utilizing your services. There they can find out more about you, your business, and why you’re better than your competitor. While the preceding example claims are attention-grabbing, they can also mean extra trouble if an unhappy client decides to take you to court. How? In her article “Avoiding website claims that increase malpractice risk,” CPA Deborah K. Rood outlined many of these risks as they applied to accountants. For lawyers, the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide general guidance. Rule 7.1 prohibits a lawyer from making “a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.” Ohio and Kentucky’s rules closely mirror the model rule. Violation of this rule could lead to a malpractice lawsuit. Listed below are the five most common claims plaintiffs’ attorneys cite in these cases. Could you be at risk?

  1. Misrepresenting your education and/or honors and awards

Did a few semesters at Harvard magically turn into a degree? A passing mention in a trade magazine suddenly become a nationally-recognized award? Skewing the facts a bit never hurt, right? Wrong. Doing so puts your livelihood and reputation at serious risk. There are three types of misrepresentation professionals can be sued for: fraudulent (deceitful), negligent (careless), and innocent (thoughtless). Although clients may not necessarily double-check a professional’s credentials, plaintiffs’ attorneys in malpractice suits certainly do. Protect yourself and your career. Only post provable, accurate information.

  1. Misrepresenting your experience and/or abilities

According to Michael Downey’s ABA article, “12 Tips for Reducing Online Dangers and Liabilities,” misrepresenting your experience or abilities is even more dangerous than false education or award claims. He goes on to state, “[i]ndividuals making claims against lawyers often use online boasting as exhibits in depositions and cases to suggest the lawyer was dishonest or misled a client…” This holds true for any profession, not just legal. A single experience with a particular type of client or area of practice does not an expert make. (In fact, even the use of the term “expert” can be called into question in a malpractice suit.) Stick with what you know and what you do well. Expand your knowledge base with practice and research before adding it to your professional repertoire.

  1. Using absolute/overly broad terms in statements

Many busy professionals use freelancers or marketing firms to create and manage their online presence. Advertisers love to try to set their clients apart from the competition with difficult-to-prove statements known as “puffery.” While it might be overlooked when it comes to laundry detergent, professional services are held to a higher code of ethics. Carefully review any “marketing” copy created for your professional website or page. Look out for any word that immediately sets up unrealistic client expectations such as:

  • all
  • every
  • always
  • constant
  • never

Also, be careful to avoid overly-broad statements or announcing competency criterions within your field. Overly broad claims run the risk of overpromising and underdelivering, the typical spark for a malpractice claim. Some situations may warrant a different approach or the usual standard may not be appropriate. As suggested by Rood, stick to phrases such as “may,” “often should,” “endeavor to,” or “generally” in your web copy instead.

  1. Implying influence over a client’s success

Is your client seeing positive results since working with you? Great, just don’t take all the credit. Client success is the result of many variables, of which your services may be only one. While part of growing a business means sharing your victories, professionals must be careful when claiming their services lead to client profitability. The easiest way to avoid this is to ask for client testimonials that can be posted directly on your website or page. According to Entrepreneur magazine, 85 percent of small businesses rely on word-of-mouth referrals. Third-party accolades are a powerful display of your credibility (not to mention free advertising) while keeping expectancies realistic.

  1. Not monitoring what others say on your site

Finally, just because you personally did not post a claim made on your site doesn’t mean you wouldn’t be held liable for it in a malpractice suit. Allowing fraudulent claims on your website or page is akin to you as a professional endorsing it. All businesses should perform a “content audit” of its web presence. While this is usually suggested as part of a marketing exercise, it can also act as a guard against the pitfalls listed above. Taking a bit of time to review your online content now may protect you against malpractice claims in the future.

In conclusion, as lawyers, we face many challenges. We have to attract clients, do excellent work, manage a business, stay abreast of changes in the law, etc., etc. I hope this article has provided you some useful guidance and eases your day-to-day burdens a bit. Cheers!

About Finney Law Firm, LLC

Founded in 2014, FLF has grown to 15 attorneys located in offices in Eastgate and downtown Cincinnati with five major practice areas: Corporate Law, Real Estate Law, Employment Law, Commercial Litigation and Public Interest and Constitutional Litigation.  FLF has the unique claim to three 9-0 victories at the United States Supreme Court for its public interest practice along with breakthrough class action work.

FLF also has an affiliated title insurance company, Ivy Pointe Title, LLC, that closes and insures nearly a thousand commercial and residential real estate transactions annually.

For more information about Finney Law Firm, visit finneylawfirm.com.

Media Contact: Mickey McClanahan; [email protected]; 513.797.2850.

 

These days, just about everyone is walking around with a device that can take pictures, videos, and audio recordings of anything at any time. In the workplace, this means employees can record conversations and events that take place at work. In most states, employees can record conversations they are having – including conversations with supervisors and co-workers – without disclosing that they are doing so. It can be done in secret, without breaking the law.
Many employers aren’t comfortable with the idea of employees making recordings or taking videos and pictures inside their facilities. They may have concerns about privacy or confidentiality. Or they may just not like the idea of this going on at work. Some employers have responded by instituting policies that prohibit such activities, and that provide for disciplinary action to be taken against employees who engage in them.
Are such policies legal? You may be tempted to respond, “Why wouldn’t they be? Doesn’t any property owner have the right to dictate what activities are allowed on his or her property?”
It’s not that simple when it comes to places of employment. This is because of a federal law called the National Labor Relations Act, or “NLRA”. This act guarantees the right of employees to engage in “concerted activity” for their mutual welfare or benefit. The National Labor Relations Board, which enforces the NLRA, has ruled that a blanket policy prohibiting ALL recording of workplace activities is illegal, because at least SOME such recordings might be part of a “concerted activity” that is protected by the NLRA.
For instance, if an employee wanted to take a picture of a message posted by the employer on a bulletin board, to share with her co-workers for the purpose of convincing them they needed to unionize, that could be considered protected activity under the NLRA. A broad policy that prohibited ANY picture taking on the employer’s property could therefore break the law, because it would prevent this kind of “concerted activity” by employees.
Prohibition of SOME kinds of recordings at work is fine. But employers need to be careful not to go too far. Be sure to consult with qualified employment counsel if you have questions about this area.

Finney Law Firm’s lawsuit on behalf of Brittney Heitman against Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Aftab Pureval has been remanded back to the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.

Readers will recall that Heitman filed suit in August to have a non-disparagement clause declared unenforceable under Ohio law. Heitman was fired from the clerk of court’s office shortly after Pureval took office. Heitman filed suit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, but Pureval’s attorneys argued the case – premised upon the Ohio State Constitution – should be decided by a federal judge because the Ohio State Constitution mirrors the United States Constitution in some respects.

Nearly three months after Heitman’s motion, and three days after Pureval lost his election for congress, Judge Dlott granted our motion to remand the case, finding that – as we argued – the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

The case now returns to Judge Robert Ruehlman.

[scribd id=392779326 key=key-EQQfisKKB4uhCe4NY9Sy mode=scroll]

Finney Law Firm has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Cincinnati City Councilmembers Greg Landsman, PG Sittenfeld, Wendell Young, Tamaya Dennard, and Chris Seelbach in the Open Meetings lawsuit surrounding the “gang of five” illegal meetings that were uncovered by our client Mark Miller.

The councilmembers have appealed Judge Ruehlman’s discovery order to produce documents responsive to our discovery requests. The filing of the appeal was discussed here. You can read about our motion for contempt for failing to produce the requested discovery here.

The appeal should be dismissed in this instance because the Councilmembers did not properly raise the issue of privilege to the trial court, thus prohibiting them from now raising the issue to the Court of Appeals.

We hope for a swift resolution of this matter so that our client can obtain the requested discovery documents and proceed with the case.

Learn more about Finney Law Firm’s public interest practice here.

[scribd id=392617104 key=key-A1Xe7o8OiLFB97nYdznV mode=scroll]

Today Finney Law Firm filed a motion seeking to have Judge Ruehlman hold Cincinnati City Councilmembers Greg Landsman, PG Sittenfeld, Wendell Young, Tamaya Dennard, and Christopher Seelbach in contempt for failing to comply with his Discovery Order issued in the open meetings lawsuit filed on behalf of Mark Miller. Read the motion below or here.

Judge Ruehlman ordered the councilmembers  to produce the emails and text messages that were requested as part of the discovery process in a lawsuit alleging violations of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act. The documents were to be turned over by November 2. However, the councilmembers have failed to comply or seek a stay of the order. Meaning that they are in contempt of the Judge’s Order.

Failure to comply with a judicial order disrupts the orderly administration of justice and is a serious offense. This is entirely inappropriate conduct from elected officials. We hope that Judge Ruehlman orders them to appear in person so that they can explain themselves directly to the Court.

[scribd id=392418326 key=key-0TluJGkz6oXfIbPkwqPT mode=scroll]

Just days before Cincinnati City Councilmembers Greg Landsman, PG Sittenfeld, Tamaya Dennard, Wendell Young, and Chris Seelbach (the self-proclaimed “Gang of Five”) are due to produce emails and text messages in response to our discovery requests, their attorneys have filed a notice of appeal.

Last week Judge Ruehlman ordered the Gang of Five to provide responses to our discovery requests by Friday, November 2. This appeal seems aimed solely at delay and confusing the issues between two parallel pieces of litigation brought by Finney Law Firm on behalf of our client, local activist Mark Miller.

We will fight vigorously to defeat this latest effort to stall this litigation. Read the Notice of Appeal here.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that even when there is a recent arm’s-length sale, appraisal evidence of value should be considered to contradict the sale price.

In Spirit Master Funding IX, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4302, the subject property was sold twice in 2014, one in August for $2,925,880; and again in December for $3,439,0290. The property was not subject to a lease at the time of the first sale, but was subject to a 20 year lease at the time of the second.

The Board of Tax Appeals adopted the August sale price as the true value, disregarding an appraiser’s opinion that the property’s true value as of January 1, 2014 was $1,535,000. The Board of Tax Appeals accepted the school board’s argument that the property owner did not dispute that the August 2014 sale was arm’s length, believing that question to be dispositive.

“The school board’s argument ignores the fact that appraisal evidence can both attack a sale price as evidence of true value and provide affirmative evidence of value in its own right” Spirit Master Funding IX, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4302, ¶ 9.

The case has been remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to give consideration to the testimony and report of the property owner’s appraiser.

This decision continues a trend at the Ohio Supreme Court to give force to the recent changes to Ohio’s property valuation regime.

[scribd id=391703744 key=key-quEt4LYEdGFPOQsW6gIS mode=scroll]