Legal malpractice; The two-year limitations period for a legal malpractice action; MCL 600.5805(8); Accrual; MCL 600.5838(1); Kloian v Schwartz; Mitchell v Dougherty; Termination of an attorney-client relationship; Maddox v Burlingame; United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

The court held that the trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff’s legal-malpractice action against defendants on statute of limitations grounds. She sued defendants alleging breach of contract, professional negligence, and common-law negligence in representing her in an underlying employment discrimination case against her former employer, the VA. The trial court dismissed her claim with prejudice as time barred, and denied her motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the court noted that, while it did “not agree with the entirety of the trial court’s reasoning,” it agreed with its ultimate conclusion that there was “no genuine factual dispute that plaintiff’s legal-malpractice claim accrued outside of the applicable limitations period, and therefore defendants” were entitled to summary disposition. Plaintiff filed her complaint on 10/19/23, meaning that if her claim accrued prior to 10/19/21, “the complaint was untimely.” Defendants’ professional service to plaintiff “ended, at the latest, when [she] made clear . . . that she would be proceeding pro se with her motion for reconsideration and appeal, thereby relieving [them] of their obligation to represent [her] and terminating the attorney-client relationship.” Because the “record makes clear that the attorney-client relationship ended prior to [10/19/21], plaintiff’s complaint was untimely and the trial court correctly granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition.” The record also made it clear that defendants’ 10/20/21 “email, along with their email the day prior regarding the close-out of her file, functioned only to formally memorialize a termination of representation that had, through plaintiff’s earlier conduct, already occurred.” Plaintiff’s decision “to proceed pro se and accompanying actions to that effect served to terminate the attorney-client relationship and ‘[n]o additional court action was necessary to effectuate that discharge.’” Because the attorney-client relationship terminated prior to 10/19/21, her “complaint was filed outside of the applicable two-year statute of limitations, and defendants were entitled to summary disposition.” Affirmed.