Chandra Law Logo
Chandra%20law%20headers

Practice Areas

• Practice Areas • Practices • Ohio’s Frivolous-Conduct Statute: R.C. 2323.51

When an adverse party brings completely frivolous claims or engages in frivolous conduct in litigation, you may have sanctions remedies available

Ohio Revised Code § 2323.51 provides a useful—yet often overlooked—tool to strike back against frivolous legal actions.

Frivolous lawsuits are often filed for improper purposes, like targeting the defendant; gaining media attention; or trying to coerce an unjustified settlement. But Ohio law permits courts to award attorney fees and other expenses arising from certain frivolous conduct that occurs in civil litigation.

What Is R.C. 2323.51?

R.C. 2323.51 is Ohio's statutory remedy for frivolous conduct. The law specifically targets the filing and assertion of civil actions during the litigation process. This law is distinct from Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 11, a rule that focuses on subjective bad faith before a court may impose sanctions. Instead, R.C. 2323.51 mandates a more objective rule for evaluating conduct: “It obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party.” O.R.C. § 2323.51(A)(2)(a).

The statute’s purpose is to

  • (1) deter abusive or meritless litigation;

  • (2) compensate parties that have been forced into defending against a frivolous lawsuit; and

  • (3) protect courts from baseless litigation.

What counts as a “frivolous lawsuit?”

A frivolous lawsuit is ordinarily comprised of claims that have no reasonable factual or legal foundation. Not all unsuccessful lawsuits are necessarily frivolous: they must meet a few important conditions. A frivolous lawsuit lacks any legal basis, factual support, or proper purpose.

R.C. 2323.51 provides that actions may be considered frivolous conduct under the following circumstances.

  • (1) It obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party to the civil action or appeal or is for another improper purpose, including, but not limited to, causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of litigation.

  • (2) It is unwarranted under existing law, cannot be supported by a good-faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or cannot be supported by a good-faith argument for the establishment of new law.

  • (3) The conduct consists of allegations or other factual contentions that have no evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are not likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

  • (4) The conduct consists of denials or factual contentions that are not warranted by the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are not reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

R.C. 2323.51

In short, you need to act in good faith when litigating.

Similarly, under the statute, an inmate’s lawsuit or appeal against a government entity or employee is frivolous when there is no legally valid basis for the claim, the inmate cannot prove necessary facts, or the claim duplicates a previous case.

To whom does R.C. 2323.51 apply?

Parties and attorneys, depending on the context. The statute names inmates, government entities, attorneys, and government attorneys. Attorneys are expected to abide by the rules of professional conduct.

When may I use this statute?

As with most statutes, there’s a timeline to make a claim. For R.C. 2323.51, you have no more than 30 days after the entry of final judgment in a civil action or appeal. The court may then assess awarding the adversely affected parties with reasonable attorney fees, court costs, and other relevant expenses they are entitled.

Sometimes lawyers decide it's worth filing a frivolous-conduct motion while the case is pending; sometimes judges will defer a decision until the case is over. As long as you timely file, a court should consider your concern.

For lawyers working on a contingency-fee basis, courts will not award amounts greater than what would been charged for clients under an hourly or non-contingent billing practice. O.R.C. § 2323.51 (B)(3)(a).

Many SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suits include frivolous claims; more laws to protect against them. For example, for frivolous SLAPP suits, Ohio’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) provides quick relief, attorney fees, and the option of immediate appeals to adverse rulings.

The Chandra Law Firm LLC is experienced in litigating against frivolous lawsuit claims, particularly those involving free speech or retaliation for engaging in legally protected conduct, like blowing the whistle on misconduct. To seek our services for frivolous lawsuits, contact us through our secure online contact form or, only if necessary, by phone at 888.500.5025.

Related Blog Posts and Questions

Civil Rights & Constitutional Law

Emily Moreno invokes Ohio’s new anti-SLAPP law to seek dismissal of...

May 27, 2026
FAQ

How long do I have to file an anti-SLAPP motion under Ohio's Uniform...

How long do I have to file an anti-SLAPP motion under Ohio's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) to dismiss defamation or other claims?

Civil Rights & Constitutional Law

Court dismisses defamation suit against Orange Village resident, using...

December 10, 2025

Making the right choice in legal representation can make the difference in whether you achieve a result that protects your legal rights and best interests.

Tell Us About Your Case