COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                           NO.  73087
RUSSELL KORNBLUT                  :
                                  :    ACCELERATED DOCKET
          Plaintiff-Appellee      :
                                  :      JOURNAL ENTRY
     vs.                          :
                                  :           AND
JAMES PESEK, ET AL.               :
                                  :         OPINION
          Defendants-Appellants   :
                                  :       PER CURIAM
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT                      April 16, 1998
OF DECISION:
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:          Civil appeal from
                                  Common Pleas Court
                                  Case No. CV-322798
JUDGMENT:                         Affirmed.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee:           For Defendants-Appellants:
THOMAS R. WOLF, ESQ.              JAMES G. CORRIGAN, ESQ.
Reminger & Reminger Co.           1520 Standard Building
The 113 St. Clair Building        1370 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44114             Cleveland, Ohio 44113
         and
GEORGE E. LOUCAS, ESQ.
600 Standard Building
1370 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
                               -2-
PER CURIAM:
     This is an accelerated appeal under App.R. 11.1, which by its
nature imports that our decision in this appeal will be in brief,
conclusory form.  Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983),
11 Ohio App.3d 158.
     We conclude that appellants' action against appellee  George
Loucas is  time barred under  R.C. 2305.11(A).   R.C.  2305.11(A)
requires that a legal malpractice action be commenced within  one
year. The one year statute of limitations in this case started to
run on June  14, 1994.   See Omni-Food &  Fashion, Inc. v.  Smith
(1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 385 and Skidmore & Hall v. Rottman (1983), 5
Ohio St.3d 210.
     On June 14, 1994 appellants filed a legal malpractice action
against  Russell  Kornblut  and George  Loucas.    In  the  legal
malpractice action,  they alleged that  Kornblut and Loucas  were
negligent in handling their medical malpractice lawsuit.  Several
days later, on  June 30, 1994, appellants dismissed that  lawsuit
against Kornblut and Loucas.
     On January 13, 1997, Kornblut sued appellants for unpaid legal
fees generated while he was the lawyer in the medical malpractice
suit. Appellants  counterclaimed  against  Kornblut  and  Loucas.
Kornblut and Loucas moved for summary judgment claiming that  the
appellants' counterclaim was substantially identical to the  June
14,  1994  legal  malpractice  lawsuit  filed  against  them   by
appellants, was  time barred.  The  trial court agreed and  ruled
accordingly.  After reviewing this matter de novo, we agree  with
                               -3-
the trial  court and hold as a matter of law that the statute  of
limitations  started to  run on  June 14,  1994, and  appellants'
November 1996  counterclaim is time  barred.  See  Omni-Skidmore,
supra.   Appellants'  first error1  is overruled.    Accordingly,
appellant's remaining error is moot.
     Judgment affirmed.
     1See Appendix for Assignments of Error.
                               -4-
     It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants his  costs
herein taxed.
     The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
     It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court
directing  the Common  Pleas Court  to carry  this judgment  into
execution.
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the  mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                                   ______________________________
                                   PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON,
                                   ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
                                   ______________________________
                                   JAMES M. PORTER, JUDGE
                                   ______________________________
                                   LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE
     N.B.  This entry is an announcement of the court's decision.
See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 25(A); Loc. App.R. 27. This  decision
will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the
court pursuant to App.R. 22(E), unless a motion for reconsideration
with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10)
days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period
for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the
journalization of  this court's announcement  of decision by  the
clerk per App.R.22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1).
                            APPENDIX
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
                               -5-
     I.   THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY
          DISMISSING   DEFENDANTS'   COUNTERCLAIMS   OF
          PROFESSIONAL  NEGLIGENCE   PURSUANT  TO   THE
          PLAINTIFFS' [sic] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
     II.  THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY
          DISMISSING   DEFENDANTS'   COUNTERCLAIM    OF
          INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL  DISTRESS
.