An Ohio appeals court has left Cincinnati holding the bag for nearly $300,000 in attorneys' fees after the city lost a fight over its 2023 "safe storage" gun ordinance, trimming the award only for sloppy billing and sending the case back for a recalculation.
The First District Court of Appeals largely upheld a Hamilton County judge's fee award to Frank West, who sued after his child's friend accessed an unsecured firearm in April 2023, loaded it and shot West's son. That incident led to municipal charges and a civil challenge to the ordinance. The appeals panel said most of the bill stands, but the trial court has to scrub out any block-billed time entries before the final number is set, which still leaves the city on the hook for the bulk of the tab.
The panel noted that the trial court had granted $296,179.75 in attorneys' fees and ordered the city to pay $4,788 in expert costs, bringing the total to roughly $300,967, and instructed the lower court to carve out any block-billed time while affirming the judgment in all other respects.
The dispute traces back to Cincinnati's passage of CMC 915 in early 2023 and West's follow-up civil challenge seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance clashed with Ohio's firearm-uniformity law, according to an earlier opinion from the First District Court of Appeals. That prior ruling and the trial record show a municipal judge later tossed the city charges tied to the April 2023 shooting after finding a conflict with R.C. 9.68. The way the criminal and civil cases overlapped turned out to be a key reason why much of West's fee request survived appellate review, even as the court ordered a closer look at the billing entries.
Mark Painter, one of West's attorneys, told The Cincinnati Enquirer that the city's decision to keep fighting across multiple courts is what drove the bill so high. He said the strategy forced extra rounds of briefing and appeals, inflating the hours and costs recorded by West's legal team. City officials did not immediately comment, according to the Enquirer.
What the ruling means for Cincinnati
The decision underscores how R.C. 9.68, Ohio's firearm-uniformity statute, can squeeze cities' regulatory options and expose them to fee awards when local gun rules collide with state law. The statute expressly lets successful challengers recover reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert costs, which is why the fee tally ballooned in West's case, according to the appellate record. For more context on similar battles over local gun regulations in Ohio, see reporting from Ohio Capital Journal and the statutory language in the Ohio Revised Code.
Legal takeaways
The panel's mixed ruling, which affirms the fee award but orders invoices sent back so block-billed entries can be cut out, leaves a thornier legal issue unresolved. A separate partial dissent questioned whether R.C. 9.68 allows recovery of fees tied to criminal-defense work or whether it is limited to civil litigation costs. That debate could invite further review by the Ohio Supreme Court if either side decides to push the issue. Observers note the case is part of a series of decisions that have pared back municipal gun ordinances across Ohio, as reflected in Justia.
The case now heads back to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas for the invoice review the appeals panel ordered, and how much, if any, the award shrinks will depend on that line-by-line inspection. Cincinnati could still seek additional appellate review, and the outcome will matter for other Ohio cities weighing gun-safety measures of their own. For residents, the decision is a clear signal that passing local firearm rules can come with serious legal risk and a potentially steep price tag.
