Legal malpractice; Simko v Blake; Causation; Boyle v Odette; Mitchell v Dougherty; Excessive fees claim; Summary disposition before discovery; Motion for reconsideration

Holding that the trial court correctly concluded plaintiff (Sarah) did not establish that defendants-attorneys and law firms’ alleged malpractice caused her alleged injuries, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants. The case arose from their representation of plaintiff in a divorce from her then-husband (S). Plaintiff alleged “that defendants failed to conduct any meaningful discovery, failed to take steps to enforce the parties’ status quo in the divorce, and charged excessive legal fees.” She further alleged that due to their “malpractice, she received a smaller property distribution and she had to expend over $50,000.” The record showed that she retained successor counsel (nonparty-J) on 4/22/22. J filed her appearance on 5/5/22. “Defendants remained involved in the matter until the stipulated orders allowing them to withdraw were entered on [5/27/22]. Until those orders were entered, [they] continued to owe Sarah a duty ‘to act as an attorney of ordinary learning, judgment, or skill would under the same or similar circumstances.’” The court concluded that the record showed they “continued to work on discovery issues and ensure that the parties’ financial status quo was maintained during the transition period. After defendants withdrew, Sarah and [S] agreed to binding arbitration in lieu of a trial. The arbitrator held hearings” in 8/22 and 11/22. “Under MCL 600.5074(2) and (3), the arbitrator had the power to issue subpoenas and order discovery, including sworn statements, on contested issues. [J] had at least four months to identify and remedy any perceived discovery deficiencies and pursue any necessary action to enforce the financial status quo.” The court also noted there was no evidence that J “was hindered during the arbitration proceedings by any alleged misconduct of defendants. Sarah and [S] both testified at the hearing and presented expert testimony. [J] had an opportunity to cross-examine [S] and his expert, and to present any other witnesses that may have been necessary.” In addition to agreeing with the trial court’s causation ruling, the court also agreed “that defendants were entitled to summary disposition on Sarah’s claims for excessive fees because Sarah failed to address any of defendants’ arguments on these claims in her response to their motions for summary disposition.” Summary disposition was not premature, and her motion for reconsideration was also properly denied.