Barnes v Krupp Law Offices, et al, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 22, 2007 (Docket No. 27479)

Link: http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20070522_C274749_39_274749.OPN.PDF
Underlying Transaction: Divorce

Key Concepts: (1) proximate cause and (2) damages

In this case arising from a divorce proceeding, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants committed malpractice by failing to inform him that one of the attorneys handling plaintiff's case was involved in disciplinary proceedings with the State Bar, and by failing to promptly realize that the divorce petition had been filed in the wrong county. Plaintiff alleged that defendants' act of carrying on the case in the wrong county caused him to suffer emotional and financial damages.

Defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) [statute of limitations] arguing that the complaint was filed more than two years after the last legal services were provided to plaintiff and (C)(8) [failure to state a claim] arguing that the complaint failed to did not suffer actionable damages as a direct result of the alleged negligence. The trial court granted defendants' motion on both grounds.

On appeal, the plaintiff failed to counter the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff suffered no loss as a result of the alleged negligence. For that reason alone, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court.

The court, citing Coble v Green, 271 Mich App 382, 386 (2006), explained that the plaintiff must prove (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligence in the legal representation; (3) that the negligence was the proximate cause of the injury; (4) the fact and extent of the injury alleged.

To prove proximate cause, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant's action was a cause in fact of the claimed injury. Charles Reinhart Co v Winiemko, 444 Mich 579, 586 (1994). A plaintiff must show that but for the attorney's alleged malpractice, he would not have been injured, and a claim of malpractice requires a showing of actual injury, not just the potential for injury. Colbert v Conybeare Law Office, 239 Mich App 608, 619-620 (2000).

The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege that he suffered actionable damages. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants committed malpractice by failing to inform him that the attorney handling his case was subject to disciplinary proceedings, and by failing to promptly recognize that the divorce petition was filed in the wrong county. The plaintiff alleged that he had to attend court proceedings and had to rent an apartment. But the complaint failed to specify how the alleged malpractice caused these damaged. A statement of conclusions unsupported by factual allegations is insufficient to satisfy the injury element of a legal malpractice action. Kloian v Schwartz, 272 Mich App 232, 241 (2006). Moreover, the plaintiff acknowledged that defendants' actions had no detrimental effect on the outcome of the divorce case. Therefore, plaintiff suffered no actionable loss due to any negligent conduct by defendants. Alar v Mercy Mem Hosp, 208 Mich App 518, 531 (1995) ("Injuries that would have occurred anyway [such as attending court proceedings] cannot be said to have been proximately caused.")