[Cite as Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., L.P.A. v. Peterson, 2025-Ohio-1765.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
PICKREL SCHAEFFER AND EBLING : CO., LPA : : C.A. No. 30307 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2023 CV 04852 v. : : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas JEFFREY B. PETERSON : Court) : Appellant :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on May 16, 2025
JEFFREY B. PETERSON, Pro Se Appellant
MICHAEL W. SANDNER, Attorney for Appellee
.............
EPLEY, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey B. Peterson appeals from a judgment of the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which awarded $96,067.40 in damages for
unpaid legal fees to Pickrel, Schaeffer and Ebeling Co., LLC (“PSE”). For the reasons -2-
that follow, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In late 2019, Peterson retained PSE to help resolve a “domestic separation
and business dispute involving real estate and interest in an LLC” in the common pleas
court. Hearing Tr. at 10. Later, Peterson hired the firm for assistance with a replevin action
in Dayton Municipal Court and the subsequent appeal.
{¶ 3} While it appears that Peterson, at least initially, made regular payments to
PSE (and in fact had a $0 balance in May 2021), by August 2022, he owed the firm more
than $103,000 in the “domestic separation and business dispute” case. By the time PSE
stopped representing Peterson in late 2022/early 2023, he owed $91,497.66 for that case
and an additional $4,569.74 for the municipal court case. Altogether, Peterson’s unpaid
bill was $96,067.40.
{¶ 4} On September 12, 2023, PSE filed suit against Peterson alleging breach of
contract and action on account. It filed a motion for summary judgment on March 29,
2024. The motion argued that PSE had performed legal services for Peterson in a
competent and diligent manner, had kept him abreast of the legal matters and the balance
owed, but despite demand, Peterson failed to make payment, resulting in the balance of
$96,067.40. On May 28, 2024, the trial court granted PSE’s motion for summary judgment
as to both the breach of contract and action on account claims. It did not, however,
determine damages, and set a hearing for June 21, 2024.
{¶ 5} At the damages hearing, the trial court heard from attorney Michael Sandner,
the president of PSE. Sandner testified that as a long-time practitioner in the area and -3-
president of the firm, he was familiar with the rates charged by similar firms for similar
work and believed that the rates charged to Peterson were necessary and reasonable.
He also noted that the issues his firm dealt with on behalf of Peterson were novel and
complex. Finally, Sandner introduced the engagement letter signed by Peterson, which
outlined the hourly rates of the firm’s paralegals, associates, and the partner who would
be handling the case, as well as the account statements (showing the amount owed) for
both matters handled by PSE.
{¶ 6} Peterson testified on his own behalf. He argued that he had regularly
expressed concerns to his attorney Matthew Sorg about the slow progress of the case,
especially the arbitration process, which he believed should have taken a few months as
opposed to more than a year. “My line with him [Sorg] was we need to get across the
finish line.” Hearing Tr. at 35. Ultimately, he believed his bills were unreasonable and
unnecessary.
{¶ 7} Both parties filed closing briefs in the fall of 2024. On November 6, the trial
court awarded judgment against Peterson in the amount of $96,067.40, plus interest. This
appeal followed.
II. Attorney Fees and Reasonableness
{¶ 8} In his lone assignment of error, Peterson argues that the trial court erred by
granting $96,067.40 in damages (i.e. legal/attorney fees) to PSE because “no credible,
legally required testimony/evidence was offered by [PSE].” Appellant’s Brief at 6. We
disagree.
{¶ 9} When a trial court determines the proper award of legal fees, it should -4-
consider several factors, including “(1) time and labor, novelty of issues raised, and
necessary skill to pursue the course of action; (2) customary fees in the locality for similar
legal services; (3) the result obtained; and (4) the experience, reputation, and ability of
counsel.” Green & Green, Lawyers v. Trimbach, 2018-Ohio-194, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.). “As long
as sufficient evidence is presented to allow the trial court to arrive at a reasonable attorney
fee award, the amount of the award will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”
R.C.H. Co. v. 3-J Machining Serv., Inc., 2004-Ohio-57, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 10} Peterson first argues that the evidence must be provided by an independent
expert; however, “in Ohio there is no steadfast rule that the ‘reasonableness’ of attorney
fees must be proved by expert testimony.” Cleveland v. Capitalsource Bank, 2016-Ohio-
3172, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 11} The evidence as to reasonableness may take the form of affidavits,
testimony, answers, or other forms of sworn evidence. R.C.H. Co. at ¶ 25. “Testimony of
the attorney seeking recovery of fees that the case involved complex issues, that the fees
were within a reasonable range for that type of case, and that the client never questioned
billing statements sent to the client constitutes sufficient evidence to establish the
reasonableness of the charged fees, thereby negating the need for independent expert
testimony.” Green & Green at ¶ 14. This is particularly true where there is no documentary
evidence indicating a dispute concerning the legal fees as excessive or unreasonable
during the attorney-client relationship. Id.; See Bales v. Forest River, Inc., 2019-Ohio-
4160, ¶ 7, fn. 2 (8th Dist.) (“While the presentation of testimony from a ‘disinterested
person’ or expert may be the ‘better practice,’ . . . it is not required to support a finding -5-
that attorney fees are reasonable.”).
{¶ 12} In this case, PSE president Michael Sandner testified that his firm had
handled two matters for Peterson. One was a business dispute between Peterson’s
company, Abode LLC, and some of its real estate holdings. “[T]he complaint started as a
verified complaint. It was twice amended, and the issues involved in the case were rather
novel and complex. . . . [S]ome of the claims were subject to an arbitration clause.”
Hearing Tr. at 10-11. The other was “a domestic separation business dispute involving
real estate and interest in an LLC. There was an action pending in the Dayton Municipal
Court that started as an eviction and replevin action, and then that was related to some
properties between the parties, Mr. Peterson and his partner.” Hearing Tr. at 10.
{¶ 13} According to Sandner, some claims were sent to arbitration before Judge
Langer and others were tried before Judge Parker in a bench trial. Both parties agreed
that the arbitration took a long time and involved extensive motion practice. Ultimately,
Peterson received an arbitration award of $118,000 and was awarded more than $72,000
in his common pleas court case. As to the municipal court case, the replevin count went
to trial and then was appealed (Peterson v. Booth, 2023-Ohio-1301 (2d Dist.)). We
remanded the matter back for further proceedings, so extensive briefing was invovled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., L.P.A. v. Peterson, 2025-Ohio-1765.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
PICKREL SCHAEFFER AND EBLING : CO., LPA : : C.A. No. 30307 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2023 CV 04852 v. : : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas JEFFREY B. PETERSON : Court) : Appellant :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on May 16, 2025
JEFFREY B. PETERSON, Pro Se Appellant
MICHAEL W. SANDNER, Attorney for Appellee
.............
EPLEY, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey B. Peterson appeals from a judgment of the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which awarded $96,067.40 in damages for
unpaid legal fees to Pickrel, Schaeffer and Ebeling Co., LLC (“PSE”). For the reasons -2-
that follow, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In late 2019, Peterson retained PSE to help resolve a “domestic separation
and business dispute involving real estate and interest in an LLC” in the common pleas
court. Hearing Tr. at 10. Later, Peterson hired the firm for assistance with a replevin action
in Dayton Municipal Court and the subsequent appeal.
{¶ 3} While it appears that Peterson, at least initially, made regular payments to
PSE (and in fact had a $0 balance in May 2021), by August 2022, he owed the firm more
than $103,000 in the “domestic separation and business dispute” case. By the time PSE
stopped representing Peterson in late 2022/early 2023, he owed $91,497.66 for that case
and an additional $4,569.74 for the municipal court case. Altogether, Peterson’s unpaid
bill was $96,067.40.
{¶ 4} On September 12, 2023, PSE filed suit against Peterson alleging breach of
contract and action on account. It filed a motion for summary judgment on March 29,
2024. The motion argued that PSE had performed legal services for Peterson in a
competent and diligent manner, had kept him abreast of the legal matters and the balance
owed, but despite demand, Peterson failed to make payment, resulting in the balance of
$96,067.40. On May 28, 2024, the trial court granted PSE’s motion for summary judgment
as to both the breach of contract and action on account claims. It did not, however,
determine damages, and set a hearing for June 21, 2024.
{¶ 5} At the damages hearing, the trial court heard from attorney Michael Sandner,
the president of PSE. Sandner testified that as a long-time practitioner in the area and -3-
president of the firm, he was familiar with the rates charged by similar firms for similar
work and believed that the rates charged to Peterson were necessary and reasonable.
He also noted that the issues his firm dealt with on behalf of Peterson were novel and
complex. Finally, Sandner introduced the engagement letter signed by Peterson, which
outlined the hourly rates of the firm’s paralegals, associates, and the partner who would
be handling the case, as well as the account statements (showing the amount owed) for
both matters handled by PSE.
{¶ 6} Peterson testified on his own behalf. He argued that he had regularly
expressed concerns to his attorney Matthew Sorg about the slow progress of the case,
especially the arbitration process, which he believed should have taken a few months as
opposed to more than a year. “My line with him [Sorg] was we need to get across the
finish line.” Hearing Tr. at 35. Ultimately, he believed his bills were unreasonable and
unnecessary.
{¶ 7} Both parties filed closing briefs in the fall of 2024. On November 6, the trial
court awarded judgment against Peterson in the amount of $96,067.40, plus interest. This
appeal followed.
II. Attorney Fees and Reasonableness
{¶ 8} In his lone assignment of error, Peterson argues that the trial court erred by
granting $96,067.40 in damages (i.e. legal/attorney fees) to PSE because “no credible,
legally required testimony/evidence was offered by [PSE].” Appellant’s Brief at 6. We
disagree.
{¶ 9} When a trial court determines the proper award of legal fees, it should -4-
consider several factors, including “(1) time and labor, novelty of issues raised, and
necessary skill to pursue the course of action; (2) customary fees in the locality for similar
legal services; (3) the result obtained; and (4) the experience, reputation, and ability of
counsel.” Green & Green, Lawyers v. Trimbach, 2018-Ohio-194, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.). “As long
as sufficient evidence is presented to allow the trial court to arrive at a reasonable attorney
fee award, the amount of the award will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”
R.C.H. Co. v. 3-J Machining Serv., Inc., 2004-Ohio-57, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 10} Peterson first argues that the evidence must be provided by an independent
expert; however, “in Ohio there is no steadfast rule that the ‘reasonableness’ of attorney
fees must be proved by expert testimony.” Cleveland v. Capitalsource Bank, 2016-Ohio-
3172, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 11} The evidence as to reasonableness may take the form of affidavits,
testimony, answers, or other forms of sworn evidence. R.C.H. Co. at ¶ 25. “Testimony of
the attorney seeking recovery of fees that the case involved complex issues, that the fees
were within a reasonable range for that type of case, and that the client never questioned
billing statements sent to the client constitutes sufficient evidence to establish the
reasonableness of the charged fees, thereby negating the need for independent expert
testimony.” Green & Green at ¶ 14. This is particularly true where there is no documentary
evidence indicating a dispute concerning the legal fees as excessive or unreasonable
during the attorney-client relationship. Id.; See Bales v. Forest River, Inc., 2019-Ohio-
4160, ¶ 7, fn. 2 (8th Dist.) (“While the presentation of testimony from a ‘disinterested
person’ or expert may be the ‘better practice,’ . . . it is not required to support a finding -5-
that attorney fees are reasonable.”).
{¶ 12} In this case, PSE president Michael Sandner testified that his firm had
handled two matters for Peterson. One was a business dispute between Peterson’s
company, Abode LLC, and some of its real estate holdings. “[T]he complaint started as a
verified complaint. It was twice amended, and the issues involved in the case were rather
novel and complex. . . . [S]ome of the claims were subject to an arbitration clause.”
Hearing Tr. at 10-11. The other was “a domestic separation business dispute involving
real estate and interest in an LLC. There was an action pending in the Dayton Municipal
Court that started as an eviction and replevin action, and then that was related to some
properties between the parties, Mr. Peterson and his partner.” Hearing Tr. at 10.
{¶ 13} According to Sandner, some claims were sent to arbitration before Judge
Langer and others were tried before Judge Parker in a bench trial. Both parties agreed
that the arbitration took a long time and involved extensive motion practice. Ultimately,
Peterson received an arbitration award of $118,000 and was awarded more than $72,000
in his common pleas court case. As to the municipal court case, the replevin count went
to trial and then was appealed (Peterson v. Booth, 2023-Ohio-1301 (2d Dist.)). We
remanded the matter back for further proceedings, so extensive briefing was invovled.
{¶ 14} Sandner also testified and presented evidence (in the form of Peterson’s
engagement letter) about the hourly rates of the legal professionals who worked on the
case. The rates, according to Sandner, were on par with PSE’s peer firms for this type of
work.
{¶ 15} Sandner testified that after Sorg left the firm, he talked with Peterson about -6-
the status of the account and reviewed the work performed and the time entries.
According to Sandner, the time was billed in 1/10 of an hour increments in accordance
with firm policy, and the billing corresponded to the underlying case. “I determined that
the amounts were consistent with what I would expect of a case of this magnitude over
the time frame this case took.” Hearing Tr. at 19.
{¶ 16} Peterson’s chief argument against the reasonableness of the legal fees
seems to be that the arbitration process took far too long. At the hearing, he asserted that
while he settled on Judge Langer to arbitrate, he would have preferred to use the
American Arbitration Association and claimed that the process should have taken a
fraction of the time it did. He testified that in the spring/summer of 2023, he “began to
intensify [his] dissatisfaction with the billing costs and expenses involved in what should
have been a four-month matter. These frustrations were voiced on a regular basis to Matt
Sorg.” Hearing Tr. at 35. He further stated that “all of the motion practice, all of the back
and forth that went on for 25 months was unnecessary. It is unreasonable as a layman
and as a consumer. I received something that I did not buy.” Hearing Tr. at 35.
{¶ 17} The problem with this argument, however, is that it was Peterson who chose
Judge Langer to arbitrate his case.
PSE Attorney: And ultimately, you were the one that hired Judge Langer, correct?
Peterson: I believe I signed the arbitrator’s agreement. Yes.
PSE Attorney: You also made payments on your account to our office, correct?
Peterson: Correct.
Hearing Tr. at 42-43. He cannot blame PSE for the slow process that he chose. -7-
{¶ 18} Peterson’s final legal argument is that even if PSE did not need an expert
to testify to the reasonableness of the legal fees in this case, Sandner was not the proper
person; it should have been Matt Sorg, the attorney who actually worked on the case. He
cites Green & Green, 2018-Ohio-194, at ¶ 14 (2d Dist.) to support his proposition. We
disagree with his interpretation of that case.
{¶ 19} In Green & Green, we stated that “[a]n independent expert is not always
required to establish the reasonableness of claimed attorney fees. Testimony of the
attorney seeking recovery of fees . . . constitutes sufficient evidence to establish the
reasonableness of the charged fees[.]” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 14. The language of
our decision does not limit the testimony about the reasonableness of the legal fees to
only the lawyer who worked on the case, but instead gives more leeway – opening the
testimony to any attorney who is seeking the recovery of the fees. That option makes
sense because it is often the case (as here) that a firm is the entity seeking legal fees,
not just the attorney who worked on the case. It gives a firm the chance to recover legal
fees in a case where the attorney has moved on or, as PSE postulates, in the instance of
a young attorney who does not have the background or experience to appreciate the
novelty and complexity of issues or the customary fees in the area. See also Thrasher
Dinsmore & Dolan, LPA v. Ross, 2024-Ohio-1594 (8th Dist.) (affidavit by a partner from
the firm, not the attorney who handled the underlying case, was sufficient to support
summary judgment motion of law firm seeking unpaid attorney fees).
{¶ 20} Based on the evidence presented at the damages hearing, we cannot say
that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding PSE attorney fees in the amount of -8-
$96,067.40, plus interest. Peterson’s assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 21} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
TUCKER, J. and LEWIS, J., concur.