Court largely upholds $300K fee award against Cincinnati

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals has largely upheld a Hamilton County court’s decision requiring the City of Cincinnati to pay nearly $300,000 in attorney fees and litigation costs after losing a challenge to one of its firearm ordinances.

The appellate court affirmed most of the lower court’s judgment awarding $296,179.75 to plaintiff Frank West, who successfully argued that Cincinnati’s firearm ordinance conflicted with Ohio law.

However, the court sent the case back to the trial court for a narrow review of whether some attorney invoices contained “block billing,” a practice where multiple legal tasks are grouped into a single time entry.

The ruling represents another chapter in the long-running legal dispute over the extent of local governments’ authority to regulate firearms in Ohio.

Also read: Cincinnati Shootings Are Rising in 2026, Even as Gun Deaths Fall

Gun law case centers on Ohio firearm preemption law

The dispute stems from Cincinnati Municipal Code 915-3(b), which regulated firearms within the city. Frank West challenged the ordinance, arguing that it violated Ohio Revised Code 9.68, a state law that broadly preempts local governments from adopting firearm regulations that conflict with state law.

Ohio Revised Code 9.68 establishes uniform firearm laws across the state and limits municipalities from enacting separate regulations unless specifically authorized by the General Assembly.

West prevailed in the underlying lawsuit. Because Ohio law allows successful plaintiffs to recover reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses in these cases, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas awarded nearly $300,000 in legal fees and costs.

The City of Cincinnati appealed that award, arguing that the amount was excessive and that some billing practices should reduce the final judgment.

According to the First District Court of Appeals, most of the city’s objections did not justify overturning the trial court’s decision.

The appellate panel concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion when determining reasonable hourly rates, evaluating the time spent by attorneys, and calculating the overall fee award.

Appeals court orders limited review of billing records in gun law case

Although the appeals court affirmed nearly every aspect of the judgment, it found one issue requiring additional review.

The court determined that the trial court did not adequately examine whether certain attorney invoices contained block billing entries. Block billing combines several legal tasks into one billing entry instead of listing each task separately.

The appellate judges directed the lower court to review those invoices and determine whether any fees should be reduced because of block billing.

That limited remand does not affect the court’s broader conclusion that West remains entitled to recover attorney fees under Ohio law.

As a result, Cincinnati continues to face a judgment of nearly $300,000 unless the trial court reduces a portion of the award after reviewing the billing records.

The First District issued its decision on July 8, 2026, in West v. Cincinnati, 2026-Ohio-2593.

Decision reinforces statewide firearm law

The ruling reinforces Ohio’s longstanding firearm preemption statute, which has repeatedly been the subject of litigation involving municipalities across the state.

Supporters of Ohio Revised Code 9.68 argue that statewide consistency prevents a patchwork of local firearm regulations that could create confusion for lawful gun owners traveling between cities.

Cities, including Cincinnati, have argued that local governments should have greater authority to address public safety concerns through municipal ordinances tailored to their communities.

The latest decision does not revisit whether Ohio’s preemption law is constitutional. Instead, it focuses on the attorney fees awarded after the plaintiff successfully challenged Cincinnati’s ordinance.

Legal observers note that attorney fee provisions in Ohio Revised Code 9.68 create significant financial consequences for municipalities that unsuccessfully defend firearm ordinances found to conflict with state law.

Other reporting and legal background

According to the official opinion released by the Ohio First District Court of Appeals, the appellate judges affirmed the trial court’s attorney fee award except for the limited issue involving block billing.

Court News Ohio also reported that the appellate court upheld most of the nearly $300,000 judgment while returning the case for further review of billing records.

The litigation follows years of legal disputes between Ohio municipalities and firearm rights advocates over the scope of state preemption laws.

Key points from the appellate decision include:

• The court affirmed most of the $296,179.75 attorney fee award.
• Frank West remains the prevailing party under Ohio law.
• The trial court must review invoices for possible block billing.
• Any adjustment would apply only to billing entries identified during that review.
• The underlying victory against Cincinnati’s firearm ordinance remains unchanged.

The case serves as another reminder that litigation involving state firearm preemption laws can carry substantial financial consequences for local governments, even after the underlying legal dispute has concluded.

For Cincinnati officials, the next step will occur in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, where the trial judge will determine whether any billing entries warrant reductions before issuing a revised final award.

For additional background on Ohio firearm laws, readers can review the Ohio Revised Code maintained by the Ohio Legislature and opinions published by the Ohio First District Court of Appeals.