In McGlothin v. Schad, 195 Ohio App. 3d 669, 2001-Ohio-3011, the 12th District Court of Appeals held that an action for legal malpractice accrues and the statute of limitation begins to run when there is a cognizable event whereby the client discovers or should have discovered that his or her injury was related to his or her attorney’s act or non-act and the client is put on notice of a need to pursue possible remedies against the attorney or when the attorney-client relationship for that particular transaction or undertaking terminates, whichever occurs later. R.C. 2305.11(A). Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter and Griswold, 43 Ohio St. 3d 54, 538 N.E. 2nd 398 (1989). Once a cognizable event occurs, there is notice of “the necessity for investigation and pursuit of her remedies.” Lintner v. Nuckols, Preble App. No. CA2003-10-020, 2004-Ohio-3348, 2004 WL 1433632. A cognizable event triggering the statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action occurs when the person discovers or should have discovered that he or she was injured by the attorney’s actions or non-actions. The person need not be aware of the full extent of injury, but a cognizable event should alert a reasonable person that there was a questionable legal practice.
In McGlothin there was a cognizable event when the client knew or should have known of his legal malpractice claim the day before he filed an application for reopening of his criminal case in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.