Bob focuses his practice on civil litigation. Bob has experience representing clients involved in complex commercial litigation and defending claims of professional malpractice. Bob represents parties in probate and trust disputes. Bob litigates trademark and trade dress infringement disputes. Bob also represents employers in labor arbitrations, before the Ohio State Employment Relations Board and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, and in disputes stemming from employment non-competition agreements. Bob has experience serving manufacturers, hospitals, colleges, technology companies, small businesses, and individual clients. In addition to representing clients in active litigation, Bob is available to consult with clients regarding litigation risks they face and to assist with government relations.
Before joining the firm, Bob spent a year each clerking for U.S. District Court Judge Jack Zouhary and U.S. Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II, both of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division. Bob was born and raised in Toledo, and is thrilled to be able to practice law in his hometown.
The University of Toledo College of Law, J.D., summa cum laude, 2009
Georgetown University, B.A., 2006
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Founder and host of the Toledo Matters Podcast
Leadership Toledo, Class of 2014
Lucas County Democratic Party - Judicial Screening Committee
Toledo Ohio Pet Services, Inc., d/b/a Toledo Unleashed, Member of Board of Directors
American Bar Foundation, Fellow
Litigation Counsel of America, Fellow
Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, Vice Chair of the Medical Negligence Committee
National Lawyers Guild
American Bar Association
Illinois State Bar Association
Michigan State Bar Association
Ohio State Bar Association
Defense Research Institute
Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys
Michigan Defense Trial Counsel
Society of Ohio Healthcare Attorneys
American Inns of Court, Morrison R. Waite Chapter
Toledo Bar Association, Elected Member of Board of Directors, and member of Grievance Committee
Federal Bar Association for the Northern District of Ohio, Board of Directors Member
Toledo Junior Bar Association, Past President
Super Lawyers Ohio Rising Star (2017-2021)
Labor and Employment
Legal Malpractice Defense
Medical Malpractice Defense
Probate and Trust Disputes
Our client, a lawyer, was sued for legal malpractice by her former client, whom she represented in a criminal case. The plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to prison in the underlying criminal case. Plaintiff’s claims relied entirely on protestations of his actual innocence of the underlying crime.
We filed a Motion for Summary Judgment because Plaintiff was collaterally estopped from asserting in a legal malpractice case that he is actually innocent of the criminal charges for which he was convicted. As a result, we argued that a claim for legal malpractice that relies on the allegation of actual innocence fails as a matter of law.
The Court granted our Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the claims against our client with prejudice.
A plaintiff originally hurt himself by putting his arm through a window and cutting his arm on the broken glass. He then went to the emergency room for treatment. He claimed that the emergency room physician committed medical malpractice by failing to remove all of the glass from his wound, and sued our clients, the emergency room physician and hospital.
We filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint because Plaintiff did not attach an affidavit of merit to the Complaint. Plaintiff argued that he did not need to attach an Affidavit of Merit because this was a case was a foreign objects case or a negligence per se case. We responded to this argument distinguishing the fact pattern from true foreign objects cases where a surgical implement is left within a patient.
The Court agreed with us that Plaintiff needed an affidavit of merit, and allowed Plaintiff 90 days in which to file such an affidavit of merit, otherwise the Complaint would be dismissed without prejudice. Rather than obtaining an affidavit of merit, Plaintiff dismissed his case instead.
Our clients, an animal feed company and its insurer, were faced with over two dozen complaints from ranchers that feed sold to them by the animal feed company was rancid and damaging their animals. The ranchers’ potential claims against the animal feed company were a threat of significant exposure.
Working with the animal feed company and its insurer, we managed the settlement of almost all of the ranchers’ claims. We then filed suit in federal court against the animal feed company’s toll miller, whom our clients believed caused the feed to be rancid in the milling process. This lawsuit lasted over four years and involved extensive discovery, including discovery into each of the over two dozen ranchers’ animal husbandry practices and experience with the bad feed. These ranchers were located across ten states and a Canadian province.
Two months before trial, and in the midst of obtaining trial depositions from all of the ranchers, we were able to reach a negotiated settlement satisfactory to our clients.
Client radiologists were sued by an injured plaintiff and added to a pre-existing lawsuit after the co-defendant surgeons testified they relied on the radiologists in providing the care at issue. Plaintiff alleged that she had been injured as a result of chemotherapy being administered through a mal-positioned port into her right pleural space.
We responded to Plaintiff’s claims against the radiologists by moving to dismiss those claims because Plaintiff did not attach an affidavit of merit as to the radiological care to the Amended Complaint. We also moved to dismiss the claims on the basis that they were barred by the statute of limitations because Plaintiff’s claims against the radiologists accrued at the same time her claims against the other defendants accrued, and not when the co-defendant surgeons testified they relied on the radiologists.
The Court agreed with both arguments we presented in our motion to dismiss, and dismissed the claims against our clients with prejudice.
The defendant surgeon at his deposition and at trial potentially implicated our radiology client by testifying that the content of our client’s radiology report did not give the surgeon the information he needed to have allegedly changed the patient’s treatment plan. The patient ultimately died after many months of treatment and incurring over $1 million in medical expenses.
Plaintiff's counsel used the defendant surgeon’s testimony to create conflict among the defendants while at the same time portraying the patient as a victim of the defendants’ disagreement. To counter Plaintiff's counsel’s strategy, the defendant surgeon attempted to put his testimony in its proper context and we worked with our client to avoid any disagreement with the surgeon. We instead focused our client’s defense upon his correct interpretation of the radiology study and that all of the information which could be reasonably be derived from the radiology study was reported.
By avoiding the temptation to openly disagree with the co-defendant and keeping the defense focused on the proper interpretation of the radiology study by our client, the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client notwithstanding a verdict against the co-defendant.
I was born and raised in West Toledo, where I now reside with my family. When not being entertained by my young children, my primary hobby is cooking (and eating) new and interesting things. I also have a great love of music, although lacking any musical talent of my own. Despite that fact, I was the music director and disc jockey of the Georgetown University Radio Station, WGTB, during college.
For Important Legal Updates and Resources on the Coronavirus Click Here.