Opinion
Docket No. 108676.
Leave to Appeal Denied January 5, 1998.
Reported below: ( After Remand) 221 Mich. App. 335.
I would grant leave to appeal to decide whether it is a question for the jury whether an attorney acted reasonably in failing to anticipate how the Court of Appeals would interpret a statute as a matter of first impression. The case is now ten years old. The Court of Appeals has held in a published opinion that there is a question of fact regarding whether defendant breached the standard of care. The Court also noted that the trial court interpreted the statute as requiring only that an application for a bond and not the actual bond be filed during the ten-day period and that the interpretation was reasonable because the statute is ambiguous. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that it was for the trier of fact to determine if defendant lawyer acted reasonably in interpreting the statute in the same way as Judges KAUFMAN and MURPHY interpreted it.
The issue of an attorney's liability for malpractice in failing to accurately predict the resolution of a legal issue that had not been decided by the Court of Appeals and has yet to be decided by this Court, on which reasonable attorneys may differ, and the issue of proximate cause, are issues of major significance.
CAVANAGH, J.
I concur with Justice BOYLE'S dissenting statement and would grant leave to appeal.
Reconsideration granted 457 Mich ___ .