legal malpractice claim in Michigan

2026Our Supreme Court interpreted MCL 600.5805 and MCL 600.5838 in the context of a legal malpractice claim in Gebhardt v O’Rourke, 444 Mich 535 ; 510 NW2d 900 (1994).

2026Our Supreme Court interpreted MCL 600.5805 and MCL 600.5838 in the context of a legal malpractice claim in Gebhardt v O’Rourke, 444 Mich 535 ; 510 NW2d 900 (1994).

2024We now hold that in the absence of an attorney’s dismissal by the court or the client, and in the event that an attorney sends notice of withdrawal as his or her final act of professional service, a legal malpractice claim with respect to a particular matter that has been finally dismissed by order of the trial court accrues at the time affirmative notification of withdrawal is sent. [Kloian v Schwartz, 272 Mich App 232, 237-238 ; 725 NW2d 671 (2006) (ellipsis and alteration in original, some citations omitted).] -7- In early 2018, plaintiff hired Hall to represent him in the district court ev

2023In Michigan, a legal malpractice claim accrues on “the attorney’s last day of professional service in the matter out of which the claim for malpractice arose.” Kloian v Schwartz, 272 Mich App 232, 238 ; 725 NW2d 671 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024The elements of a legal malpractice claim are (1) “the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligence in the legal representation of the plaintiff”; (3) causation; and (4) injury. 20 While attorneys are required to engage in reasonable professional conduct,21 they do so in the context of providing services in a licensed profession and almost always in the context of an agreement or commercial exchange, unlike many other tort contexts. 22 19 See 1 Mallen, Legal Malpractice, § 1:1 (2024 ed); see also Anonymous v Attorney Grievance Comm, 430 Mich 241, 248-249 ; 422 NW2d 648 (1988) (

2024The elements of a legal malpractice claim are (1) “the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligence in the legal representation of the plaintiff”; (3) causation; and (4) injury. 20 While attorneys are required to engage in reasonable professional conduct,21 they do so in the context of providing services in a licensed profession and almost always in the context of an agreement or commercial exchange, unlike many other tort contexts. 22 19 See 1 Mallen, Legal Malpractice, § 1:1 (2024 ed); see also Anonymous v Attorney Grievance Comm, 430 Mich 241, 248-249 ; 422 NW2d 648 (1988) (

2024Accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, which we must, El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 159-160, plaintiff has facially alleged all of the elements of a legal malpractice claim based on the alleged discrepancy in the arbitrator’s award, Bowden, 310 Mich App at 503 .

2023In Bowden v Gannaway, 310 Mich App 499 ; 871 NW2d 893 (2015), this Court explained the elements of a legal malpractice claim.

2026ANALYSIS The elements of a legal-malpractice claim are: “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligence in the legal representation of the plaintiff; (3) that the negligence was the proximate cause of an injury; and (4) the fact and extent of the injury alleged.” Manzo v Petrella, 261 Mich App 705, 712 ; 683 NW2d 699 (2004).

2019In order to successfully advance a legal malpractice claim, the plaintiff must show: “(1) the existence of an attorney- client relationship; (2) negligence in the legal representation of the plaintiff; (3) that the negligence was the proximate cause of an injury; and (4) the fact and extent of the injury alleged.” Manzo v Petrella, 261 Mich App 705, 712 ; 683 NW2d 699 (2004), citing Charles Reinhart Co v Winiemko, 444 Mich 579, 585-586 ; 513 NW2d 773 (1994).

2026ANALYSIS The elements of a legal-malpractice claim are: “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligence in the legal representation of the plaintiff; (3) that the negligence was the proximate cause of an injury; and (4) the fact and extent of the injury alleged.” Manzo v Petrella, 261 Mich App 705, 712 ; 683 NW2d 699 (2004).

2019In order to successfully advance a legal malpractice claim, the plaintiff must show: “(1) the existence of an attorney- client relationship; (2) negligence in the legal representation of the plaintiff; (3) that the negligence was the proximate cause of an injury; and (4) the fact and extent of the injury alleged.” Manzo v Petrella, 261 Mich App 705, 712 ; 683 NW2d 699 (2004), citing Charles Reinhart Co v Winiemko, 444 Mich 579, 585-586 ; 513 NW2d 773 (1994).

2017Finally, although defendants were not parties to plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel in the federal court, we agree with this Court’s extensive analysis in Knoblauch, supra at 719-725 , that mutuality of estoppel is not necessary before a defendant in a legal malpractice action can use the defense of collateral estoppel. [Id. at 483-485 (some citations omitted).] Here, as an initial matter, the trial court determined “that the gravamen of [plaintiff’s] complaint against [defendant] is for legal malpractice” and that plaintiff’s claims of breach of fidu

2017Finally, although defendants were not parties to plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel in the federal court, we agree with this Court’s extensive analysis in Knoblauch, supra at 719-725 , that mutuality of estoppel is not necessary before a defendant in a legal malpractice action can use the defense of collateral estoppel. [Id. at 483-485 (some citations omitted).] Here, as an initial matter, the trial court determined “that the gravamen of [plaintiff’s] complaint against [defendant] is for legal malpractice” and that plaintiff’s claims of breach of fidu

2024The elements of a legal malpractice claim are (1) “the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligence in the legal representation of the plaintiff”; (3) causation; and (4) injury. 20 While attorneys are required to engage in reasonable professional conduct,21 they do so in the context of providing services in a licensed profession and almost always in the context of an agreement or commercial exchange, unlike many other tort contexts. 22 19 See 1 Mallen, Legal Malpractice, § 1:1 (2024 ed); see also Anonymous v Attorney Grievance Comm, 430 Mich 241, 248-249 ; 422 NW2d 648 (1988) (

2024The elements of a legal malpractice claim are (1) “the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligence in the legal representation of the plaintiff”; (3) causation; and (4) injury. 20 While attorneys are required to engage in reasonable professional conduct,21 they do so in the context of providing services in a licensed profession and almost always in the context of an agreement or commercial exchange, unlike many other tort contexts. 22 19 See 1 Mallen, Legal Malpractice, § 1:1 (2024 ed); see also Anonymous v Attorney Grievance Comm, 430 Mich 241, 248-249 ; 422 NW2d 648 (1988) (

2020A breach of fiduciary duty claim differs from a legal malpractice claim because “[t]he conduct required to constitute a breach -4- of fiduciary duty requires a more culpable state of mind than the negligence required for malpractice.” Prentis Family Foundation, Inc v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, 266 Mich App 39, 47 ; 698 NW2d 900 (2005).

2019As this Court explained in Prentis Family Foundation, Inc v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, 266 Mich App 39, 47 ; 698 NW2d 900 (2005), a breach of fiduciary duty claim differs from a legal malpractice claim by requiring proof of conduct committed with “a more culpable state of mind than the negligence required for malpractice.” A claim of breach of fiduciary duty accrues when the beneficiary of the fiduciary relationship knew or should have known of the breach.

2020A breach of fiduciary duty claim differs from a legal malpractice claim because “[t]he conduct required to constitute a breach -4- of fiduciary duty requires a more culpable state of mind than the negligence required for malpractice.” Prentis Family Foundation, Inc v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, 266 Mich App 39, 47 ; 698 NW2d 900 (2005).

2019As this Court explained in Prentis Family Foundation, Inc v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, 266 Mich App 39, 47 ; 698 NW2d 900 (2005), a breach of fiduciary duty claim differs from a legal malpractice claim by requiring proof of conduct committed with “a more culpable state of mind than the negligence required for malpractice.” A claim of breach of fiduciary duty accrues when the beneficiary of the fiduciary relationship knew or should have known of the breach.

2016Id. at 690-691 , citing Knoblauch, 163 Mich App at 725 ; Alterman v Provizer, 195 Mich App 422, 424-425 ; 491 NW2d 868 (1992), and Schlumm, 173 Mich App at 357 .

2016Id. at 690-691 , citing Knoblauch, 163 Mich App at 725 ; Alterman v Provizer, 195 Mich App 422, 424-425 ; 491 NW2d 868 (1992), and Schlumm, 173 Mich App at 357 .

2004It has been applied to allow a no-fault insurance company to collect worker’s compensation benefits from a self-insured employer, Auto-Owners Ins Co, supra at 55, to allow a surety to assert a contractor’s right to payment, Old Kent Bank-Southeast v Detroit, 178 Mich App 416, 418, 420-421 ; 444 NW2d 162 (1989), to allow a security company’s insurance carrier to assert a legal malpractice claim against the security company’s attorney, Atlanta Int’l Ins Co v Bell, 438 Mich 512, 521-524 ; 475 NW2d 294 (1991), and in other situations.

2004It has been applied to allow a no-fault insurance company to collect worker’s compensation benefits from a self-insured employer, Auto-Owners Ins Co, supra at 55, to allow a surety to assert a contractor’s right to payment, Old Kent Bank-Southeast v Detroit, 178 Mich App 416, 418, 420-421 ; 444 NW2d 162 (1989), to allow a security company’s insurance carrier to assert a legal malpractice claim against the security company’s attorney, Atlanta Int’l Ins Co v Bell, 438 Mich 512, 521-524 ; 475 NW2d 294 (1991), and in other situations.

1991McNeil v Caro Community Hosp, 167 Mich App 492, 497-498 ; 423 NW2d 241 (1988).

1991McNeil v Caro Community Hosp, 167 Mich App 492, 497-498 ; 423 NW2d 241 (1988).

2025Id.

2024Thus, courts have held repeatedly that legal malpractice claims are governed by tort principles regardless of whether they are brought as a tort, a breach of contract, or both.”); Allied Waste North America v Lewis, King, Krieg & Waldrop, PC, 93 F Supp 3d 835, 851 (MD Tenn, 2015) (“This measure of damages in not unlike that available for a breach of contract action where plaintiff is to be placed as nearly as possible, in the same position he would have been in had the contract been performed[.]”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 24 7A CJS, Attorney & Client, § 401, p 464; 7 Am Jur 2d,

2024The elements of a legal malpractice claim are (1) “the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligence in the legal representation of the plaintiff”; (3) causation; and (4) injury. 20 While attorneys are required to engage in reasonable professional conduct,21 they do so in the context of providing services in a licensed profession and almost always in the context of an agreement or commercial exchange, unlike many other tort contexts. 22 19 See 1 Mallen, Legal Malpractice, § 1:1 (2024 ed); see also Anonymous v Attorney Grievance Comm, 430 Mich 241, 248-249 ; 422 NW2d 648 (1988) (

2024The elements of a legal malpractice claim are (1) “the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligence in the legal representation of the plaintiff”; (3) causation; and (4) injury. 20 While attorneys are required to engage in reasonable professional conduct,21 they do so in the context of providing services in a licensed profession and almost always in the context of an agreement or commercial exchange, unlike many other tort contexts. 22 19 See 1 Mallen, Legal Malpractice, § 1:1 (2024 ed); see also Anonymous v Attorney Grievance Comm, 430 Mich 241, 248-249 ; 422 NW2d 648 (1988) (

2023The court stated that, even though federal bankruptcy law, particularly 11 USC 541, determined the property rights of a bankruptcy estate, the “ ‘nature and extent of [the] property rights . . . are determined by the underlying [state] substantive law.’ ” Id., quoting Raleigh v Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 530 US 15, 20 ; 120 S Ct 1951 ; 147 L Ed2d 13 (2000) (alterations in original).

2023The court stated that, even though federal bankruptcy law, particularly 11 USC 541, determined the property rights of a bankruptcy estate, the “ ‘nature and extent of [the] property rights . . . are determined by the underlying [state] substantive law.’ ” Id., quoting Raleigh v Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 530 US 15, 20 ; 120 S Ct 1951 ; 147 L Ed2d 13 (2000) (alterations in original).

2023Id. at 571 .

2022Spiek v Dep’t of Transp, 456 Mich 331, 337 ; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). 2 An essential element of a legal-malpractice claim is the existence of an attorney-client relationship.

2022Spiek v Dep’t of Transp, 456 Mich 331, 337 ; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). 2 An essential element of a legal-malpractice claim is the existence of an attorney-client relationship.