Legal malpractice; Charles Reinhart Co v Winiemko; Attorney-client relationship; Proximate cause; “Suit within a suit”; Manzo v Petrella; Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC); MRPC 1.0(b), 1.7, & 1.10(a); Breach of fiduciary duty; Tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy; Gravamen of claim; Trowell v Providence Hosp & Med Ctrs, Inc

The court held that plaintiff failed to establish legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, or tortious interference arising from defendants’ alleged conflict of interest and communications with nonparty-PNC’s counsel. Plaintiff sued after defendant-Bayram emailed PNC’s counsel about plaintiff’s brother’s interest in buying PNC’s judgment against plaintiff, claiming the email harmed his ability to settle the judgment. The trial court granted defendants summary disposition. On appeal, the court first held that plaintiff failed to state a malpractice claim against defendant-Fleming because the complaint did not allege “negligence in Fleming’s legal representation of him in the PNC lawsuit.” The court next held that the malpractice claim against Bayram failed because plaintiff did not allege an attorney-client relationship with him, and plaintiff’s MRPC theory did not create a cause of action because the rules “do not . . . give rise to a cause of action.” The court further held that plaintiff failed to show proximate cause. It rejected his suggestion that PNC would have settled for $250,000 but for Bayram’s email, reasoning the claim ignored the years of unpaid debt, litigation, appeal, bankruptcy filings, receivership, fees, interest, and a PNC attorney’s affidavit stating the email “did not affect PNC Bank’s decisions[.]” Finally, the court held that the fiduciary-duty and tortious-interference claims sounded in malpractice because they relied on “the same alleged relationships and the same conduct” alleged in the malpractice claim. Affirmed.