Photo of Litigation Blog Alan J. Taylor ataylor@smsm.com
248.994.0063
Alan Taylor, a 2013 addition to Segal McCambridge's Michigan office, is a Shareholder in the firm's Michigan office and serves as Chair of the firm's Professional Liability …

Showing 6 posts by Alan J. Taylor.

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY CLIENT ALERT: Application of Judgmental Immunity in Illinois

by

Like other professional malpractice lawsuits, an Illinois plaintiff claiming legal malpractice against a former attorney must allege and prove that the former attorney owed the plaintiff a legal duty of care, that the former attorney breached that duty of care, that the plaintiff suffered an injury in the form of damages, and finally, that the former attorney’s breach of that duty proximately caused plaintiff’s claimed damages. Nelson v. Quarles & Brady, LLP, 2013 IL App (1st) 123122, ¶ 27. However, unlike other professionals, attorneys sued in legal malpractice lawsuits can assert an additional defense to shield themselves from liability—the Judgmental Immunity doctrine. Due to this common law doctrine, an attorney can seek the early dismissal of any legal malpractice claim where an unsatisfactory outcome/damages were allegedly caused by the former attorney’s good faith error in judgment in the underlying matter. More »

REAL ESTATE CLIENT ALERT: Michigan Court of Appeals Held That Non-Tenants May Not Sue Landlords Under Common Theories of Liability

by

On September 20, 2018, the Michigan Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision, Morrish v. Sun Communities, Inc., highlighted an important argument available to landlords defending lawsuits brought by a non-tenant occupant of a rental unit who never signed the lease.  The Court in Morrish held that non-tenants, even if identified on the lease as authorized occupants of a rental unit, may not sue landlords under several different common theories of liability. More »

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY CLIENT ALERT: Physicians Beware: New Jersey Supreme Court Erodes Self-Critical Analysis Privilege

by

A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision has eroded the long held self-critical analysis privilege applicable in New Jersey medical malpractice lawsuits. Health care facilities, physicians and their insurers will likely face increased liability exposure as a result of the Court’s decision in Bugaletta v. Garcia.[1]  Conversely, this decision should benefit patients alleging medical malpractice as they now have a means to obtain a summary of facts relevant to the alleged malpractice.    More »

LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY CLIENT ALERT: Protecting Against Legal Malpractice Counterclaims in New York

by

An attorney must proceed prudently in commencing a fee claim, as a counterclaim for legal malpractice will often be asserted by a former, delinquent client. The following article summarizes the procedural mechanisms and litigation strategies an attorney can utilize to protect against the former client’s filing of such a counterclaim.[1] More »

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY CLIENT ALERT: Collateral/Crossover Estoppel as a Bar to Legal Malpractice Claims

by

Depending on the facts and issues involved in a legal malpractice claim, there are various defenses to be proffered. One potential defense is the doctrine of collateral/crossover estoppel, a “rule of issue preclusion”[1] that “precludes relitigation of an issue in a subsequent, different cause of action between the same parties when the prior proceeding culminated in a valid final judgment and the issue was actually and necessarily determined in the prior proceeding.”  Barrow v. Pritchard, 235 Mich. App. 478, 480 (1999).  Crossover estoppel is the application of collateral estoppel in a civil matter after a final determination was made in a prior criminal matter.  In Saad Akram Bahoda v. Steven M. Kaplan (Case No. 332313, July 20, 2017), the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the Macomb County Circuit Court’s grant of summary disposition for a defendant-lawyer applying the doctrine of collateral/crossover estoppel to hold that his former client’s legal malpractice claim was precluded as a matter of law. More »

REAL ESTATE CLIENT ALERT: Michigan Court of Appeals' Recent Decision Reviews What Constitutes a Fixture Under Michigan Law

by

Image result for "real estate"As you may be aware, Michigan has very few cases involving an issue that frequently arises at the end of many tenancies – whether items such as heating system(s), window shades, awnings, storm doors, stoves, etc. constitute fixtures (that remain the Landlord’s property at the end of the tenancy) or personal property (that the Tenant may freely remove at the end of the tenancy).   On May 9, 2017, the Michigan Court of Appeals in Grand Traverse County Land Bank Authority v. Verizon Wireless and Great Northern Broadcasting System, Inc. held that that a broadcasting tower on a 14 acre parcel was a fixture that could not be removed .  A summary of this recent decision (and the Michigan Court of Appeals reasoning on what constitutes a fixture under Michigan law) is below.   More »

Get Updates By Email

Blog Contributors