Legal malpractice; Charles Reinhart Co v Winiemko; Attorney-judgment rule; Simko v Blake; Credibility determinations; Proximate cause; Successor counsel

The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed on breach of the standard of care and proximate cause in plaintiff-NPC’s legal malpractice claim, so summary disposition for defendant-Butzel was improper. In 2008, Butzel represented NPC concerning a property dispute tied to a golf course development that allegedly overlapped NPC’s land. The firm advised NPC that it had no viable claim to prevent or delay construction, after which NPC later lost its ability to pursue the underlying quiet-title relief. The trial court granted Butzel’s motion for summary disposition, finding that Butzel was not negligent, that NPC failed to show Butzel was the proximate cause of its harm because NPC retained new counsel in 2009 but did not file the quiet-title action until 2011, and that further discovery would not change the outcome. On appeal, the court held that summary disposition was improper because the trial court impermissibly weighed evidence and made credibility determinations when it discounted NPC’s expert affidavit. “‘The trial court is not permitted to assess credibility, weigh the evidence, or resolve factual disputes,’” and the record created factual disputes regarding whether Butzel breached the standard of care in advising NPC and handling communications and filing decisions. The court also found a triable causation question because the equitable-delay findings in the underlying property litigation relied on “NPC’s ‘silence on the title issue’” during construction, and the record supported that at least part of the delay period the courts relied upon began while Butzel still represented NPC, making it a fact question whether Butzel’s alleged inaction and advice contributed to the loss of the underlying claim. Reversed and remanded.