Attorneys Brian D. Einhorn and Karen R. Geibel obtained summary disposition for their client in a legal-malpractice case. Brian and Karen successfully argued that the plaintiff’s claims were invalid because their client’s statements—the basis for the plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution claim—were made in a judicial proceeding and therefore absolutely privileged. They also argued that the plaintiff couldn’t pursue a legal-malpractice claim at all because there was no attorney-client relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The Wayne County Circuit Court agreed, dismissing all claims against Brian and Karen’s client.

Collins Einhorn Farrell attorneys Colleen H. Burke, Brian D. Einhorn, and Peter J. Tomasek successfully defended their clients in a legal-malpractice case. The case stemmed from a personal-injury accident at the plaintiff’s apartment complex. Brian, Colleen, and Peter obtained summary disposition for the defendants by successfully arguing that, based on the plaintiff’s original complaint, the plaintiff couldn’t show that the defendants caused her alleged damages. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to amend her complaint. But Brian, Colleen, and Peter argued that the proposed amendments did not revive the claims. The Court agreed with the Collins Einhorn attorneys and dismissed all claims against their clients.

Collins Einhorn attorneys Theresa M. Asoklis, Michael J. Cook, and Jonathan B. Koch successfully defended a legal-malpractice action against a lawyer-guardian ad litem with a statutory-immunity defense. For full details, click on the headline.

The plaintiff filed a legal-malpractice complaint against his criminal-defense lawyer. His claims were based on his conviction for assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder—he stabbed a man in the neck during a fight at a hookah lounge. After his conviction, the plaintiff filed a motion arguing that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. The criminal court denied the motion. In the civil case, David Anderson represented the criminal-defense lawyer and obtained summary dismissal. He argued, and the court agreed, that the trial court’s finding in the criminal case that plaintiff did, in fact, receive effective assistance of counsel collaterally estopped him from claiming that his lawyer committed malpractice. The plaintiff appealed and Michael Cook successfully obtained a Michigan Court of Appeals opinion affirming the trial court’s ruling.

Collins Einhorn attorneys Theresa M. Asoklis and Michael J. Cook successfully defended a complex, large damage, legal-malpractice case. After the trial court denied two motions for summary disposition, Asoklis and Cook, obtained a rare grant of leave to appeal from the Court of Appeals. The appellate court then reversed, finding that the trial court should have granted summary disposition to the defendants based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. To read further, click on the headline.