Justice Michelle J. Sheehan wrote the dissenting opinion, along with Justices Patricia Ann Blackmon, Eileen T. Gallagher, Sean C. Gallagher and Anita Laster Mays. The dissent considered the majority`s finding to be derogatory to the American rule and noted that this “fourth exception”, recognized by the majority, was excluded from the preliminary proceedings without any instruction from the Ohio Supreme Court or the legislative branch. Since in this case no deviation from the U.S. rule applied and because the mere referral of legal fees does not change their type of fees, dissent would deny any legal fees to law firms. The applicant submitted that the transaction agreement was inadmissible under the privilege of mediation, but that this did not resign, as the written agreement was reached nine days after the mediation was concluded. With respect to the amount of royalties awarded, the applicant argued that unacceptable royalty factors must be taken into account, but the Court of Appeal held that the 4-200 professional conduct rule applied only to members of the State Bar, not to the actual parties to the settlement agreement.

The defence`s published counts did not prevent the merits of the motion from being assessed. The applicant also failed to challenge a particular reference in such a way that he did not meet his office to the extent that he challenged the adequacy of the rights claimed. The 8th arrondissement found that compensatory damages were awarded to fully compensate one party for the damage caused by the other party. If the parties agree to settle a case, the end of a dispute is an essential part of the consideration exchanged under the agreement. By breaking a transaction agreement, the break party deprives the other party of the essential advantage of its good deal. As a result, the 8th Arrondissement found that the unsolicited party had to recover reasonable legal fees as compensation and not as “litigation costs.” As legal fees were eligible for reimbursement, the U.S. rule did not exclude recovery in this case, although none of the exceptions to the U.S. rule were applicable. The majority also found that it does not matter whether the uninjured party sought the application of the settlement agreement in a separate remedy or by filing an application. There, as part of a 2010 real estate contract, a buyer sued sellers and brokers over various theories with a pricing clause, the lawsuit having finally been dissolved for successful defensive activists. The dominant sellers then filed an application against the buyer for legal fees of $87,959.50, which was awarded in total and which prompted a complaint from the seller.

In deciding whether legal fees should be awarded to a dominant party, Ohio courts rely on the “American rule.” Under the U.S. rule, each complainant must pay his or her own legal fees, unless a statute provides for a deferral of costs, the parties have agreed to something else by contract or a party has acted. Since none of the exceptions to the U.S. rule apply in this case, law firms are not allowed to recover legal fees. In general, the U.S. rule does not authorize the recovery of legal fees without legal authorization, in bad faith or an agreement by the parties to defer costs.