Whether the termination of attorney-client relationship for purposes of R.C. 2305.11 Legal Malpractice is dependent upon the filing of motion to withdraw pursuant to Local rule of court

QUESTION PRESENTED : # (1) The sole issue presented in this petition is whether the termination of attorney-client relationship for purposes of R.C. 2305.11 Legal Malpractice, {time limitation on bringing a legal-Malpractice claim) is dependent upon the filing of motion To; withdraw prusuant to Local rule of court. # 2 Franklin County Common Pleas, Civil Division Court case No. 17-CV-005235 Presiding Judge : Guy Resse Il, In The matter of Allege Legal Malpractice, R.C. 2305.11 against DefendentAppellee, Phillip W. Gerth, The courts journal entry has date of June 10th 2016 date of attorney-client withdraw. This case was scheuled for hearing June 12th 2017 but was dismissed witout adminstrative hearing, {ALj} Trail (de-novo) Petitioner; Michael A. Kelley Jr. was deprived of his fourteenth admendent right. U.S.C. (1871) and 42, U.S.C. (1983) , Claims may be brought in either State or Federal Courts, Petitioner chose state courts ; because Ohio medicaid's processing claims Dept. being (a) State (Entity) 42, U.S.C. 1396 et. seq. U.S. code unannotated title 42, the Public Health and Wefare 1396 medicaid accesscommission. (in reference To; Ohio Medicaid's Third time deinal via Thire processing claims Dept.) it has already been established that thire was an attorney-client relationship contract signed agreement, by both parties, June 6th 2016 date entered into agreement with attorney Phillip W. Gerth, he was commissioned for the sole purpose of filing an appeal To; the six curcit court of appeals, concerning Ohio medicaid's third time denial, coverage issue. via the state of Ohio's claims processing Dept. statute of medical Limitations involved. R. C. 2305.11.3 and R. C. 2305.113 Petitioner's Health Care Provider Company Aetna Better Health of Ohio filed Grievance File No. GRO0593 This grievance was filed upon Ohio medicaid for thire third time denial on ' member Michael A. Kelley Jr. To; cover the cost for his medical necessity, Oral Maxillofacial ; corrective reconstructive surgery procedure, To; be Preformed @ Cleveland Cllinic Ohio the R. ' C. 2305.11.3 and R.C. 2305.113 one year statute of Limitations, On said (Grievance) Expired ; June 9th 2016 The day before attorney-client withdraw. via the courts. June 10th 2016 ' Franklin County Common Pleas, Civil Division Court Presiding Judge Guy Resse I! Granted | Defendent-Appellee, Gerth, Full-summary Judgment. without {ALj} trail, (de-novo) Petitioner ' was denied his fourteenth amendment right, this privilage” guaranteed to all born naturalized . citizens in the United States of America, . Summary judgment 56(c} adminstrative executive proceedings is not judicial yet may satify the | due process clause (746) more over the due process clause does not require (de-novo) and in ' this case was applied To; Petitioner's case. No. 17-CV-005235 7 1 ‘ “According, To; The due process clause Petitioner was deprived of his Fourteenth Admendment ‘ derpivation of right act 1871 and 42, U.S.C. (1983) under color of state Law. Which states the due process clause provides that (NO) state shall deprive any person of Life, Liberty, or Property", without due process of Law. Wherefore; Petitioner was denied the opportunity to explain those filed evidentiray documents to substantiate under oath testimony with expert wittnesses From; Aetna Better Health of Ohio To; collobarte when thier (grievance) expired, June 9th 2016 and the courts would have known @ {ALj} Trail hearing that defendent, Gerth, and Petitioner's Kelley's attorney-client contract agreement had not expired until the day After said date of June 10th 2016 the date courts have journalized. attorney-client withdraw. # 3 Is it Judicial Protocol Procedure via the courts Legal advisor or administrator to inform/instruct a Pro-se, litigant that they need to submit (a) corrective brief upon a case pending before a ruling/decision is rendered. This error is Listed as one of three Major 10th dist. court of appeals assignment of errors. which was disr