Legal malpractice; Coleman v Gurwin; Causation; Charles Reinhart Co v Winiemko; Speculation or conjecture; Pontiac Sch Dist v Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone; Cause in fact; Bowden v Gannaway

The court held that the trial court properly granted defendants-attorney and law firm summary disposition of plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim. Plaintiff’s claim arose out of defendants’ handling of her divorce. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants based on plaintiff’s failure to present any evidence related to causation. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the trial court erred because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to causation. “[P]laintiff’s evidence about her misunderstanding of the terms of the consent judgment of divorce, along with defendants’ alleged failure to explain them to her, are entirely irrelevant as related to whether defendants’ alleged negligence caused her damages. Instead, defendants’ evidence was properly focused on the question of cause in fact, and supported that even if plaintiff had properly understood the terms of the consent judgment of divorce, she could not have done better by negotiating to keep her interest in the pension or going to trial to ensure it.” Although her failure to “provide evidence of her ability to negotiate a more favorable settlement that included her interest in the pension is not necessarily fatal to her claim, she also failed to present any evidence that she would have been more successful at trial.” The trial court “was left only with evidence from defendants regarding causation. That evidence showed that plaintiff could not have achieved a more favorable outcome via a more beneficial settlement or a trial. Plaintiff failed to rebut that evidence with anything other than conjecture,” which was insufficient to survive summary disposition. “[A]ll of plaintiff’s evidence related to whether defendants breached their duty to plaintiff by failing to properly advise her before she signed the consent judgment of divorce. Defendants, on the other hand, presented substantial evidence about causation[.]” Affirmed.