Legal malpractice; Simko v Blake; Breach of the professional standard of care; Broz v Plante & Moran; Causation; Patel v FisherBroyles, LLP; Consent judgment; Brendel v Morris; Principle that the value of property may serve as a valid substitute for an award of child support; MCL 552.605(2)(c)

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendants-lawyer and law firm summary disposition of plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim. Plaintiff sued defendants for legal malpractice, alleging that as a result of defendants’ negligence she did not receive a fair distribution of the marital assets and child support in her divorce. The trial court ruled for defendants, finding plaintiff’s alleged injuries “were not proximately caused by defendants’ alleged negligence, but were attributable to plaintiff’s failure to seek child support after entry of the judgment.” On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by granting defendants summary disposition because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to her legal malpractice claim, and that summary disposition was premature because discovery had not yet taken place. It agreed with defendants that plaintiff failed to demonstrate proximate cause, and failed to demonstrate negligence or injury. In addition, plaintiff was not without a remedy. The trial court found the child support provision was modifiable, and that her alleged injuries resulted from her failure to seek modification of the child support award. “Because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendants were the proximate cause of her alleged injury, the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition.” Further, plaintiff “failed to show conflicting provisions in the judgment of divorce.” The court also rejected plaintiff’s contention that summary disposition was premature because discovery had not yet taken place. Plaintiff’s arguments speculated “about what evidence could be uncovered, but she fail[ed] to provide evidence to support her contentions.” As such, the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendants was not premature. Affirmed.