From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shand Law PLLC v. Min Dong

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Oct 31, 2014
854 N.W.2d 901 (Mich. 2014)

Opinion

Docket No. 149551. COA No. 319697.

10-31-2014

SHAND LAW PLLC, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. MIN DONG, Defendant–Appellant.


Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 19, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARKMAN, J. (concurring).

I concur in the majority's order denying leave to appeal. I write separately only to observe that when an attorney's representation under a contingency-fee agreement is terminated before completion of the contracted-for services, “the attorney is entitled to compensation for the reasonable value of his services on the basis of quantum meruit, and not on the basis of the contract, provided that his discharge was wrongful or his withdrawal was for good cause.” Plunkett & Cooney, PC v. Capitol Bancorp, Ltd., 212 Mich.App. 325, 329–330, 536 N.W.2d 886 (1995). Notwithstanding what I view as the trial court's misapplication of this rule, the practical consequences here are slight and further proceedings would require an expenditure of judicial resources that is difficult to justify.


Summaries of

Shand Law PLLC v. Min Dong

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Oct 31, 2014
854 N.W.2d 901 (Mich. 2014)
Case details for

Shand Law PLLC v. Min Dong

Case Details

Full title:SHAND LAW PLLC, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. MIN DONG, Defendant–Appellant.

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan.

Date published: Oct 31, 2014

Citations

854 N.W.2d 901 (Mich. 2014)
497 Mich. 891