ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - MALPRACTICE - ACCRUAL OF ACTION - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Plaintiff, in March, 1934, while in the employ of a manufacturing concern, suffered severe injuries. In September, 1935, he employed the defendant, an attorney, to present and prosecute a claim for compensation. The claim was filed in March, 1937; it was dismissed by the Industrial Commission on the ground that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations governing such claims. Apparently the attorney, continuing his efforts on behalf of his client, persuaded the employer to make a voluntary settlement, for the plaintiff alleges that, in May of 1940, he endorsed the employer\u27s check over to the attorney, accepted the attorney\u27s check for a lesser amount and terminated the attorney-client relationship. Early in May, 1941, plaintiff brought this action, claiming negligent delay, on the part of the defendant, amounting to malpractice. The court sustained the defendant\u27s demurrer, and held that this malpractice action was barred by an applicable one-year statute of limitation; this period had begun to run, it was said, as soon as the plaintiff\u27s claim against the employer became stale. Galloway v. Hood, 69 Ohio App. 278, 43 N. E. (2d) 631 (1941)