Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838b (2026)
Action for legal malpractice; commencement; limitation; definitions.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.5838b Action for legal malpractice; commencement; limitation; definitions.
Sec. 5838b.
(1) An action for legal malpractice against an attorney-at-law or a law firm shall not be commenced after whichever of the following is earlier:
(a) The expiration of the applicable period of limitations under this chapter.
(b) Six years after the date of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim.
(2) A legal malpractice action that is not commenced within the time prescribed by subsection (1) is barred.
(3) As used in this section:
(a) "Attorney-at-law" means an individual licensed to practice law in this state or elsewhere.
(b) "Law firm" means a person that is primarily engaged in the practice of law, regardless of whether organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability partnership, professional limited liability company, professional corporation, or other business entity. Law firm includes a legal services organization.
History: Add. 2012, Act 582, Imd. Eff. Jan. 2, 2013
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: Sarah Lynn Nortley v. Dennis Hurst, 908 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Sarah Lynn Nortley v. Dennis Hurst, 908 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “5838(2), and a statute of repose, MCL 600.5838b, barred Nortley's malpractice claim.”
Larry Darnell Jones v. Daniel E Manville (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “As referenced in the quoted language above, the accrual and discovery provisions are subject to MCL 600.5838b, which was enacted pursuant to 2012 PA 582 and made effective 1 Defendant attorney explained that he filed the motion to withdraw because he was receiving copies of…”
Bishop & Heintz Pc v. Scott H Finch (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “5838b, the statutory provision setting forth the applicable statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) An action for legal malpractice against an attorney-at-law or a law firm shall not be commenced after whichever of the…”
C New Prods. Corp. v. Butzel Long (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “] Applying the pertinent LaFontaine factors here, as required by Buhl, leads to a determination that under the circumstances presented, MCL 600.5838b is not retroactive.3 In LaFontaine, the Supreme Court introduced its discussion of retroactivity with a caution: “Retroactive…”
Doraid Elder v. Scott K Lites (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “5805(8), they were nonetheless time-barred by the statute of repose, MCL 600.5838b,2 because the act of legal malpractice was the failure to record the assignment in 2011, and plaintiffs did not file suit until December 2020, outside the six-year statute of repose period.”
Marks v. Schafer & Weiner, PLLC (E.D. Mich. 2021). “5838 in relationship to MCL 600.5838b, which apparently has not yet been the subject of any published opinion, because Jones’s legal malpractice action is time-barred no matter what construction is employed.”
Sarah Lynn Nortley v. Dennis Hurst (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “5838(2), and a statute of repose, MCL 600.5838b, barred Nortley’s malpractice claim.”
Shannon Wiggins v. G Sal Gani (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “[MCL 600.5838b (emphasis added).] “Unlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose bars a claim after a fixed period of time from the defendant’s act or omission and may prevent accrual of a claim even if the injury happens after the statutory period has expired.”
Iafrate v. Warner Norcross & Judd, LLP (E.D. Mich. 2023). “MCL 600.5838b. For claims accruing in December 2013, that limitations period expired in December 2015 (legal malpractice) and December 2016 (breach of fiduciary duty).”
Steven Bradley MacKenzie v. Jonathan Toby White (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “MCL 600.5838b(1). “Unlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose bars a claim after a fixed period of time from the defendant’s act or omission” absent consideration whether the plaintiff had discovered the claim.”
New Prods. Corp. v. Butzel Long (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “* * * After several years of litigating the underlying dispute, which included multiple appeals in this Court,1 Harbor Shores ultimately prevailed. New Products then resumed its litigation against Butzel Long, asserting that Butzel Long’s negligence resulted in New Products…”
Odell Jones v. Cyril C Hall (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “A claim of legal malpractice must be brought within two years from the time the claim first accrued or “within 6 months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838b(1) — 6 cases
Sarah Lynn Nortley v. Dennis Hurst, 908 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “5838(2), and a statute of repose, MCL 600.5838b, barred Nortley's malpractice claim.”
Bishop & Heintz Pc v. Scott H Finch (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “5838b, the statutory provision setting forth the applicable statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) An action for legal malpractice against an attorney-at-law or a law firm shall not be commenced after whichever of the…”
Sarah Lynn Nortley v. Dennis Hurst (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “5838(2), and a statute of repose, MCL 600.5838b, barred Nortley’s malpractice claim.”
Steven Bradley MacKenzie v. Jonathan Toby White (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “MCL 600.5838b(1). “Unlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose bars a claim after a fixed period of time from the defendant’s act or omission” absent consideration whether the plaintiff had discovered the claim.”
Iafrate v. Warner Norcross & Judd, LLP (E.D. Mich. 2023). “MCL 600.5838b. For claims accruing in December 2013, that limitations period expired in December 2015 (legal malpractice) and December 2016 (breach of fiduciary duty).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838b(1)(a) — 1 case
Larry Darnell Jones v. Daniel E Manville (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “As referenced in the quoted language above, the accrual and discovery provisions are subject to MCL 600.5838b, which was enacted pursuant to 2012 PA 582 and made effective 1 Defendant attorney explained that he filed the motion to withdraw because he was receiving copies of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838b(1)(b) — 4 cases
C New Prods. Corp. v. Butzel Long (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “] Applying the pertinent LaFontaine factors here, as required by Buhl, leads to a determination that under the circumstances presented, MCL 600.5838b is not retroactive.3 In LaFontaine, the Supreme Court introduced its discussion of retroactivity with a caution: “Retroactive…”
Larry Darnell Jones v. Daniel E Manville (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “As referenced in the quoted language above, the accrual and discovery provisions are subject to MCL 600.5838b, which was enacted pursuant to 2012 PA 582 and made effective 1 Defendant attorney explained that he filed the motion to withdraw because he was receiving copies of…”
Shannon Wiggins v. G Sal Gani (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “[MCL 600.5838b (emphasis added).] “Unlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose bars a claim after a fixed period of time from the defendant’s act or omission and may prevent accrual of a claim even if the injury happens after the statutory period has expired.”
Doraid Elder v. Scott K Lites (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “5805(8), they were nonetheless time-barred by the statute of repose, MCL 600.5838b,2 because the act of legal malpractice was the failure to record the assignment in 2011, and plaintiffs did not file suit until December 2020, outside the six-year statute of repose period.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.