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.

In Shakoor v Soble (Docket No. 369192), the plaintiffs, Saleem Bin Shakoor and Tasleem Saleen, filed a legal malpractice complaint against the defendants, attorney David Soble and his law firm, Soble PLC. The claim related to the defendants’ representation of the plaintiffs in a foreclosure action. The Oakland County Circuit Court dismissed the suit with prejudice, finding that Saleem Shakoor had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law because he improperly acted as an attorney on behalf of Tasleem. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claim.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding “no clear abuse of discretion” in the trial court’s ruling.

Judge Thomas C. Cameron, Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly and Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett joined the unpublished opinion.

Background

The plaintiffs hired the defendant and his law firm to represent them in a foreclosure action, after which the plaintiffs were evicted and the home was sold. Several years later, the plaintiffs, in propria persona, jointly filed a complaint against the defendants. They alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, professional malpractice, gross negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, innocent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, successor liability and alter ego.

The plaintiffs filed joint pleadings throughout the case, including a motion to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses, a response to the defendants’ motion to transfer the case and a response to the defendants’ motion for summary disposition.

During the proceedings, the defendants and the trial court raised numerous concerns about the documents being filed by the plaintiffs, as well as Saleem’s representation of both plaintiffs and the apparent assistance the plaintiffs received in drafting their motions and responses. “Saleem admitted to the trial court that he prepared the pleadings on behalf of both Tasleem and himself with the help of family members and others who assisted him with drafting, proofreading, and preparing the documents for filing.”

About one year after initiating their lawsuit, the plaintiffs – for the first time – filed a motion for the trial court to appoint an Urdu interpreter for Tasleem under MCR 1.111 and MCR 8.127. The defendants then filed a motion to show cause and for a stay pending a decision of the Court of Appeals in the plaintiffs’ foreclosure action and an investigation by the State Bar of Michigan into allegations that Saleem engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by filing legal documents on behalf of Tasleem and not responding to the trial court’s request for information about those who helped Saleem draft the documents. The defendants asked the trial court to dismiss the case, strike the plaintiffs’ filings or enter an order requiring the plaintiffs to provide contact information of those who assisted them. In response, the plaintiffs “appeared to deny that Saleem represented Tasleem, but nonetheless stated that they made joint decisions about their case, and that Tasleem consented to Saleem filing motions and responses on her behalf.”

The trial court ruled that Saleem engaged in the unauthorized practice of law because he improperly acted as an attorney on behalf of Tasleem. The trial court entered an order denying the defendants’ request for a stay but granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action with prejudice. The order also indicated that Saleem would be referred to the State Bar of Michigan “for investigation of suspected unauthorized practice of law.”

The plaintiffs appealed.

Unauthorized Practice Of Law

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued the trial court wrongly dismissed their case because their complaint was properly pleaded and they were permitted to act as pro se litigants.

“We disagree,” the Court of Appeals said, noting that “litigants who decide to proceed without counsel are ‘bound by the burdens that accompany such election.’”

In particular, the Court of Appeals referenced MCL 600.916(1), which prohibits persons without a law license from practicing law in Michigan. The statute says: “A person shall not practice law or engage in the law business, shall not in any manner whatsoever lead others to believe that he or she is authorized to practice law or to engage in the law business, and shall not in any manner whatsoever represent or designate himself or herself as an attorney and counselor, attorney at law, or lawyer, unless the person is regularly licensed and authorized to practice law in this state. A person who violates this section is guilty of contempt of the supreme court and of the circuit court of the county in which the violation occurred, and upon conviction is punishable as provided by law. This section does not apply to a person who is duly licensed and authorized to practice law in another state while temporarily in this state and engaged in a particular matter.”

Moreover, when judges know of possible unauthorized practice of law activity, they have “an ethical duty to take necessary steps to prevent the unauthorized practice and must report the incident to authorities empowered to act upon the matter,” the Court of Appeals explained, citing State Bar of Michigan Ethics Opinion JI-26. When an unauthorized practice of law assertion is substantiated, trial court judges “may also enter an order of contempt, dismiss the action, strike the pleadings, void the judgment, or make a disciplinary complaint.”

Here, the record showed that although Saleem and Tasleem chose to represent themselves, they jointly filed various pleadings and documents throughout the proceedings, the Court of Appeals observed. “Saleem admitted that he alone drafted documents for both plaintiffs and that he received assistance from family members and other people to ensure the documents were free from grammatical and spelling errors and met the filing requirements. By drafting and filing court documents on behalf of both Tasleem and himself, Saleem clearly assisted another person in matters that required ‘the use of legal discretion and profound legal knowledge.’”

Accordingly, “Saleem was clearly engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion by dismissing the action, which was within its inherent authority,” the Court of Appeals held.

The Court of  Appeals also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court impeded Tasleem’s ability to represent herself by not appointing an Urdu interpreter for her.

“Despite filing their complaint in November 2022, plaintiffs did not request an interpreter for Tasleem until November 2023,” the Court of Appeals wrote. “Again, Saleem prepared the motion and, like their many other filings, it bore both Saleem and Tasleem’s names and signatures. During the motion hearing, Saleem acted on Tasleem’s behalf and asked for the interpreter. Because Saleem was representing Tasleem in matters that required the use of legal discretion and knowledge, … Saleem again engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The trial court observed on the record that Tasleem answered questions in court and never indicated her need for an interpreter and that, once again, Saleem was acting as Tasleem’s legal counsel. Tasleem never made a pro se request for an interpreter and, in light of defendants’ motion to dismiss for Saleem’s unauthorized practice of law, the trial court did not deprive Tasleem of her due process rights by dismissing the case without granting her belated request for an interpreter.”

Based on the foregoing, “[w]e find no clear abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling, and affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal,” the Court of Appeals concluded.