by Christopher J. Graham and Joseph P. Kelly

Ruff v. Reising, Ethington, Barnes, Kisselle, P.C., Case No. 11-CV-11110 (E.D. Mi. Sept. 27, 2012)

Defendant law firm’s summary judgment motion granted based on statute of limitations. “Under Michigan law, a legal malpractice claim must be brought within two years of the date the attorney ceases to serve the client or within six months of when the client discovered or should have discovered the claim, whichever is later” and “[a] claim for professional malpractice accrues ‘at the time [the professional] discontinues serving the plaintiff in a professional or pseudoprofessional capacity as to the matters out of which the claim for malpractice arose.” Here, plaintiff sued firm on November 10, 2010. The last substantive services provided by the firm were in April 2008—more than two years before suit was filed and, thus, plaintiff’s claim was time-barred. Defendant’s letter on November 10, 2008 confirming the end of the attorney-client relationship with plaintiff didn’t toll the statute of limitations when the last substantive services were provided in April 2008.