In a complex legal battle, an Ohio appellate court has upheld a summary judgment in favor of two attorneys accused of third-party legal malpractice. The case, filed by Joyce Calabrese in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas on November 24, 2025, centers around allegations against Michael Judy and Caterina Cocca-Fulton. Calabrese claimed that the attorneys acted with malice when they facilitated changes to her late husband’s trust, effectively disinheriting her.
The dispute traces back to 2009 when Calabrese married Park Casteel under a prenuptial agreement that outlined separate assets for each party. In 2014, Casteel established a trust naming his daughters as beneficiaries upon his death. However, in 2021, amid declining health and questions about his mental capacity, Casteel’s daughter Erin Rainsberger engaged attorney Michael Judy to review the estate documents. Judy then referred the case to Cocca-Fulton, who met with Casteel and prepared an amendment removing Calabrese as a beneficiary.
Calabrese argued that the attorneys conspired with Rainsberger to exert undue influence over her husband during a vulnerable time. She alleged that this amounted to legal malpractice and sought damages for being wrongfully disinherited. Her claims hinged on assertions of malice and ethical breaches by the attorneys involved.
The trial court dismissed these claims after finding no evidence of malice or breach of duty by Judy and Cocca-Fulton. The court noted that both attorneys acted within their professional roles without intent to harm Calabrese. The appellate court agreed, stating that the actions taken were consistent with representing their clients’ interests rather than any malicious intent towards Calabrese.
Despite expert testimony suggesting unethical conduct by the attorneys, the court found it speculative and inadmissible as it did not meet the burden of proof required for such serious allegations. The decision underscores the high threshold needed to prove third-party legal malpractice claims involving accusations of malice.
Joyce Calabrese was represented by Larry W. Zukerman, S. Michael Lear, and Adam M. Brown from Zukerman, Lear, Murray & Brown Co., L.P.A., while Michael Judy was defended by Gregory E. O’Brien and Clayton Papenfus from Cavitch Familo & Durkin Co., L.P.A., and Caterina Cocca-Fulton was represented by Monica A. Sansalone, Maia E. Jerin, and Jeremy S. Ribando from Gallagher Sharp LLP. The case was presided over by Judge Eugene A. Lucci with Judges Robert J. Patton and Matt Lynch concurring in the decision (Case No: 2025-L-018).
Source: 25L018_Calabrese_v_Judy_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
