Practice Areas

We possess the legal knowledge to handle briefing and oral arguments before state and federal appellate courts throughout Ohio, representing clients in more than 200 appeals and original actions in matters involving these grounds:

Sufficiency of Evidence — Decisions may lack the proper foundation of evidence.

Weight of Evidence — Decisions may have been rendered against the weight of the evidence introduced.

Proper Legal Interpretation — A judge may have misread the relevant case law.

Improperly Admitted Testimony — A claim may arise that testimony is unduly prejudicial.

Expert Admission — There may be challenges to the admission of expert evidence under the Daubert standard.

Procedural Errors — Violations may be identified under federal or state rules that govern trial litigation.

Faulty Jury Instructions — Misstated directions from the judge might have improperly influenced jury members in their deliberations..

For all of these matters, you can rely on advice from an established appellate attorney. Our firm’s principal attorney, Paul Flowers, is AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell®, a recognition of his legal ability and ethics based on evaluations from fellow lawyers who know his work.

As a certified Ohio appellate law specialist, Paul Flowers has used every available legal means of challenging and defending lower court decisions through:

Direct Appeals

Motions for post-trial relief

Motions to vacate

Motions for reconsideration

Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict

Appeal briefs

Writs and Original Actions

Amicus curiae briefs

When assisting clients with appeals, we take the time at our firm to explain the various aspects and advantages of each step in the process. This way, our clients can make fully informed decisions on how to pursue the most favorable outcome.

We possess the legal knowledge to handle briefing and oral arguments before state and federal appellate courts throughout Ohio, representing clients in numerous criminal appeals in matters involving these grounds:

Sufficiency of Evidence — A guilty verdict may lack the proper foundation of evidence.

Weight of Evidence — A guilty verdict may have been rendered even though the evidence introduced weighs strongly in favor of innocence.

Illegal Search and Seizure — A judge may have permitted evidence to come into court that was taken by police during an illegal stop, arrest, or search.

Consecutive Sentences — Ohio law permits consecutive sentences in only select cases, and these stacked penalties are sometimes used for the wrong reasons.

Sentencing Errors — Sentencing laws are complicated, and it is possible for a court to make mistakes during a sentencing hearing.

Improperly Admitted Testimony — A claim may arise that testimony was hearsay, that it was admitted without any opportunity to cross-examine a witness, or that it was unduly prejudicial.

Juvenile Bindover — Your child may have been prosecuted for a crime as an adult without a hearing to determine whether that procedure was appropriate.

Procedural Errors — Violations may be identified under federal or state rules that govern trial litigation.

Faulty Jury Instructions — Misstated directions from the judge might have improperly influenced jury members in their deliberations.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel — The trial attorney or your first appeals attorney may have committed significant mistakes that justify a new trial or reopening of an appeal.

For all of these matters, you can rely on advice from an established appellate attorney, Louis Grube. When assisting clients with appeals, we take the time at our firm to explain the various aspects and advantages of each step in the process. This way, our clients can make fully informed decisions on how to pursue the most favorable outcome.

Our attorneys have a vested commitment to see justice upheld, which is why we keep abreast of litigation trends and ever-changing case law to mount the strongest possible appeal in your case. Drawing upon more than two decades of appellate advocacy, we can spot legal issues that are appropriate for consideration by the highest courts in the state and federal legal system. Whether you wish to affirm or reverse a decision, our diligent research and knowledge of federal and state case law can maximize your chances for obtaining the result you seek.

United States Supreme Court

Our attorneys have taken the following cases to the United States Supreme Court:

Omnisun Azali, Petitioner v. Ohio, Case No. 24-478

Leandre Jordan, Petitioner v. Ohio, Case No. 21-7089

First Choice Chiropractic, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Mike DeWine, Governor of Ohio, et al., Case No. 20-903

Travis Soto, Petitioner v. Ohio, Case No. 19-7834

Anderson Law Offices, et al., Petitioners v. Common Benefit Fee and Cost Committee, Case No. 19-791.

Jaonte Hairston, Petitioner v. Ohio, et al., Case No. 19-327.

Rachel Haas, Carol Haas, and Richard Haas, Petitioners v. Quest Recovery Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-263.

Supreme Court of Ohio

Our attorneys have significant experience appealing cases to the Supreme Court of Ohio. We file more than one dozen briefs in the state’s High Court on a yearly basis. Please see our Decision List for a sample of the cases that we have successfully taken there.

Flowers & Grube regularly offers support to other attorneys and law firms engaged in litigation in courts all over Ohio. If you would like backup from experience appellate lawyers, who can help make short-term decisions with informed perspectives about the long-term concerns that may come up on appeal, please reach out to us.

Our firm has been involved in several class action lawsuits in conjunction with other attorneys. These complex proceedings have sought relief for thousands of individuals for violations of consumer protection laws, workers compensation regulations and other legal prohibitions.

Perhaps most illustrative of our experience is the decision in Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74, 2004-Ohio-28. The Santos class action was a collaborative effort between Bashein & Bashein Co. L.P.A. of Cleveland, Ohio, Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A. of Cleveland, Ohio, Dworken & Bernstein Co. of Painesville, Ohio and Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz of Dayton, Ohio.

On October 15, 1999, a Complaint was filed seeking the return of subrogation payments that had been made by approximately 8,000 injured Ohio workers to the Bureau of Workers Compensation. The Bureau Administrator, James Conrad, had been requiring claimants who had successfully secured civil judgments and settlements against third parties (at their own expense) to turn over a substantial portion of their recoveries. It was argued in the pleading that the statues that authorized these collection efforts, R.C. §4123.93 and §4123.931, violated the Ohio Constitution’s guarantees of due process, equal protection, a jury trial, and a meaningful remedy.

Claims for damages against the State must generally be litigated in the Court of Claims in Columbus, where the judges are appointed by the Chief Justice. During the preparation of the Santos Complaint, counsel concluded that a claim of such magnitude could be more fairly and justly resolved by one of the elected judges on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. In order to file the lawsuit in that jurisdiction, the class members’ theories of recovery had to be limited to the equitable and declaratory remedies specified in R.C. §2743.03(A)(2). More specifically, the class members demanded an equitable disgorgement of the improperly collected funds, appropriate declaratory relief, and an injunction against any further unconstitutional activity. Through the Office of Attorney General James Petro, Bureau Administrator Conrad denied that any refunds were owed.

The litigation gained considerable momentum on June 27, 2001, when the Ohio Supreme Court issued its ruling in Holeton v. Crouse Cartage Co., 92 Ohio St.3d 115, 2001-Ohio-109, holding that the workers’ compensation subrogation statute, R.C. §4123.931, was unconstitutional in its entirety. Attorney General Petro’s office proceeded to file a Notice of Concession in the Santos class action acknowledging that the State could not lawfully force injured workers to repay their benefits pursuant to the invalid statute. Still, the Bureau flatly refused to refund any of the money that had been collected from the injured workers before the Supreme Court could determine that the legislation was unenforceable. Class counsel therefore continued to pursue their claims against the State.

Over the Bureau’s opposition, Judge Burt W. Griffin approved class certification on September 18, 2001. During a pre-trial hearing that was conducted a few days later, he advised the attorneys that he had also decided to grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and order the return of the funds. Before he could formally journalize his ruling, Attorney General Petro’s office filed a Notice of Appeal which removed the action from Judge Griffin’s courtroom.

In a surprising development, the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals released an opinion on June 6, 2002, Santos v. Admr., Bur. of Workers' Comp., 2002-Ohio-2731, dismissing the class action for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ counsel immediately submitted a Memorandum to the Ohio Supreme Court seeking further review. This request was granted and a Brief and Reply were filed on behalf of the class members urging reversal of the Court of Appeals ruling.

On January 21, 2004, a decision was issued authored by Justice Maureen O’Connor. The Court held that the lawsuit had been properly filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and reversed the appellate court determination. In the unanimous view of the seven Justices, even the state government can be required to repay “wrongfully” collected funds in accordance with longstanding principles of equity.

Notwithstanding this directive, Bureau Administrator Conrad continued to oppose the class members’ claims for refunds. When the lawsuit was returned to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry the Supreme Court’s mandate into execution, Attorney General Petro’s office filed numerous motions and briefs imploring Judge Griffin to re-open the proceedings and permit the State to argue that the payments had all been made “voluntarily.”

Each of these requests was denied and a judgment was entered in favor of the class members on December 28, 2004 ordering the return of all the funds that had been collected totaling $51,815,959.64.