Legal malpractice; Simko v. Blake; Whether the attorney-client relationship was with the personal representative (PR); Steinway v. Bolden; Claim that the defendant-attorney’s obligation only extended to heirs of the estate; MCL 700.3703; MCL 700.1212; In re Baldwin Trust; Whether defendant negligently represented plaintiff and whether the negligence proximately caused the injury to plaintiff; MCL 700.3703(1); Whether defendant provided adequate notice of the hearing to distribute funds in the probate case to plaintiff; State Bar Grievance Adm’r v. Estes; Standard of care (SOC); Failure to disclose a conflict of interest & withdraw from representation; MRPC 1.7; McTaggert v. Lindsey; Statute of limitations; Scherer v. Hellstrom; Kloian v. Schwartz; Levy v. Martin

The trial court properly held that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant-attorney acted as the attorney for the estate in the probate court. It rejected the contention that the PR and defendant “owed a fiduciary duty only to heirs of the estate, and not to defendant, a named beneficiary of the decedent’s life insurance policy, and a clear interested party to the estate.” Plaintiff alleged defendant failed to properly represent plaintiff’s interests as a beneficiary of the estate of her brother, Curtis Lee, Jr. Defendant claimed that “he did not commit legal malpractice because he did not have an attorney-client relationship with plaintiff” and that he represented only Curtis’s wife and PR of the estate (Lee). Defendant’s name was “listed as the attorney for the estate on the pleadings in the probate court. Most compellingly,” in his motion for disbursement in the probate case, he labeled himself "as the attorney for the estate." Further, in his answer to plaintiff’s complaint in this case, “he admitted that he represented the estate.” Based on his representations, the court concluded that the holding in Steinway applied. While it found that summary disposition was not appropriate as to whether defendant provided notice of the hearing to distribute funds in the probate case to plaintiff, the court agreed with the trial court that defendant violated the SOC by failing to disclose a conflict of interest and withdraw from representation. “Defendant admittedly represented both the estate along with Lee’s interests as a claimant, which was a conflict of interest.” Further, plaintiff’s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant “continued to represent plaintiff and the estate” through 6/23/11, when the probate court entered an order vacating its 1/13/11 order to disburse funds. Thus, the statute of limitations for plaintiff’s malpractice case did not begin to run until well after 1/13/11. Affirmed.