The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim against the defendant and his law firm because one of the plaintiffs repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court improperly interpreted the terms of the parties’ agreement and, as a result, the plaintiff’s malpractice suit was improperly dismissed, the Michigan COA has ruled.

The MI SCT is considering an amendment to MRPC 1.8, seeking to clarify that arbitration provisions in retainer agreements are prohibited unless the client has independent counsel review them.

The plaintiff, Elizabeth Silverman, filed a breach of contract suit against the defendant, Lawrence Korn, because he refused to pay for legal work that she had performed in his divorce case.

Attorneys who are retained to provide expert witness testimony are not automatically shielded by the witness immunity doctrine and can be sued for professional malpractice.

The COA in MacDowell v Houghtaling, reasoned that the plaintiff could not establish the element of proximate cause based on the COA prior denial on a delayed application.

It is not very often that a COA opinion incorporates a visual aid. We see it few and far between, usually with an attached plat or map in a real estate case.

In Bhama v Garves, the Court of Appeals found an appeal regarding legal malpractice by an in pro per psychiatrist to be frivolous.

In a recent opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court in People v Trakhtenberg, addressed a very narrow issue - the use of collateral estoppel by the prosecution to prevent a criminal defendant from challenging his trial counsel’s effectiveness.

In Shannon v Foster Swift Collins & Smith, P.C., former clients brought a legal malpractice suit against the law firm and attorney who represented them in a real estate matter.

Recently, the Court of Appeals took on an interesting battle between attorney and former client in Seyburn v Bakshi, where Law Firm was suing its Former Client for unpaid legal fees.