In Shannon v Foster Swift Collins & Smith, P.C., former clients brought a legal malpractice suit against the law firm and attorney who represented them in a real estate matter.

The Supreme Court issued an order on the long-awaited non-refundable retainer case pending before it in Cooper v Attorney Grievance Commission. In that case, the client hired an attorney to represent her in a divorce action.

You surely are familiar with the adage, "the man who represents himself has a fool for a client." This phrase took on special meaning in the COA decision People v Cochrane, in which the Court determined that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow a criminal defendant to represent himself.

Legal circles are abuzz with speculation about the possible impact the stunning election of Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Diane Hathaway will have on the Michigan Supreme Court and more importantly, Michigan Law.

Getting stuck with joint liability for attorneys’ fees after a reversal in the COA is like being saddled with the dinner tab after a bad date - no fair.

The COA upheld Heidi's Law in People v Perkins. Heidi's Law is MCL 257.265 and increases the penalty for persons convicted of driving under the influence if the person has been convicted of the offense 3 or more times at any time, even though the statute of limitations is 10 years.

Recently, the Court of Appeals took on an interesting battle between attorney and former client in Seyburn v Bakshi, where Law Firm was suing its Former Client for unpaid legal fees.

In Estes v Titus, a woman brought a wrongful death suit against the man who killed her husband. She obtains a judgment but when it came time to collect the wrongful death judgment, the man was in prison.

The COA prohibited a trial attorney from recovering additional fees for his work in Reed v Breton. In that case, the trial attorney had a one-third contingency fee agreement with the plaintiff, but the agreement excluded any appeals.

In re Orozco Minors, a rare published termination of parental rights case, the COA reversed a decision of the Macomb County Family Court terminating respondents’ parental rights when they were deported to Guatemala.

In the case In re Michael Robert Benbow III, Minor, the COA reversed an order of the Clinton County Family Court terminating a father’s parental rights in a step-parent adoption case.

In Powery v Wells, the COA affirmed a trial court’s order changing custody of a minor child based on the mother’s move from Ludington to Traverse City.

In Berger v. Berger, a Defendant-father appealed from a judgment of divorce to the Michigan Court of Appeals following a Trial Court ruling that the Plaintiff-mother was to receive custody of the parties two children as well as a 70/30 division of marital property.

In DHS v Holm, the Court of Appeals reversed a decision terminating respondent’s parental rights after holding that the trial court improperly exercised jurisdiction. The respondent allegedly sexually abused two of his daughters.

Four female employees sued Anheuser-Busch arising from sexual harassment claims against a male employee (Robinson) occurring over Robinson’s ten-year span of employment. Each time, the employer investigated the claims internally by interviewing the women and Robinson.

What was this defendant thinking? In Jackson v Jackson the Court of Appeals affirmed a property division that awarded 97% to the husband and 3% to the wife, after the wife tried to murder her husband with rat poison.

The Michigan Supreme Court has re-confirmed "equitable tolling" for delayed applications for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals in Beavers v Barton Malow (on Remand) (Docket 269007).

In Surman v. Surman, the trial court allowed a 12-year-old boy to testify in open court during a custody trial regarding what type of abuse had occurred between the child and his father.