DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE

STATE OF MICHIGAN

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Michigan ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Michigan

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Professional / Firm Name]
[Professional Liability Insurance Carrier]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date(s) of Negligent Service: [Date or Date Range]
Professional(s): [Professional Name(s) and License Type]
Matter/Project: [Description]
Claim Number: [If assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with the professional malpractice committed by [Professional/Firm Name] in [his/her/their] provision of [type of professional services] services. This letter constitutes formal notice of our client's claim and our demand for settlement.

I. MICHIGAN-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Governing Law

Professional malpractice claims in Michigan are governed by common law negligence principles and M.C.L. Section 600.5805 et seq. The elements are established in Simko v. Blake, 448 Mich. 648 (1995) and Charles Reinhart Co. v. Winiemko, 444 Mich. 579 (1994).

B. Statute of Limitations

Malpractice Actions: Under M.C.L. Section 600.5805(6), professional malpractice claims must be commenced within two (2) years from the date of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim.

Discovery Rule: M.C.L. Section 600.5838 provides that the period of limitations runs from the time the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the existence of the claim.

Statute of Repose: Notwithstanding the discovery rule, M.C.L. Section 600.5838(2) imposes an absolute six (6) year statute of repose. No action may be commenced more than six years after the act or omission.

Legal Malpractice: The limitations period begins when the attorney-client relationship ends or when the client discovers or should have discovered the claim. Gebhardt v. O'Rourke, 444 Mich. 535 (1994).

Relevant Dates in This Matter:
- Date(s) of negligent services: [Date(s)]
- Date of discovery: [Date]
- Two-year limitations period expires: [Date]
- Six-year repose period expires: [Date]

C. Comparative Negligence

Michigan follows a modified comparative negligence system under M.C.L. Section 600.2959. A plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. If the plaintiff's fault is greater than 50%, recovery is completely barred.

D. Standard of Care Under Michigan Law

Under Michigan law, a professional must exercise that degree of care, skill, and proficiency commonly exercised by ordinarily skillful, careful, and prudent professionals in the same field at the time of the service. Simko v. Blake, 448 Mich. 648 (1995).

Key Case Law:

• Attorneys: Must possess and exercise the knowledge, skill, and ability ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the profession. Simko v. Blake, 448 Mich. 648 (1995).
• Accountants: Must perform services in accordance with GAAP and GAAS and exercise reasonable professional judgment. Law Offices of Lawrence J. Stockler, PC v. Rose, 174 Mich. App. 14 (1989).
• Engineers/Architects: Must conform to standards of practice accepted by other professionals in the field. Clark v. Dalman, 379 Mich. 251 (1967).

E. Expert Witness Requirements

Expert testimony is required in professional malpractice cases to establish:
1. The applicable standard of care;
2. That the defendant breached that standard; and
3. That the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's damages.

Charles Reinhart Co. v. Winiemko, 444 Mich. 579 (1994).

Exception: Expert testimony is not required when the professional's negligence is so obvious that it is within the common knowledge of laypeople.

Certification: We have retained a qualified expert who has reviewed the relevant documents and has concluded that the applicable standard of care was breached and that such breach proximately caused our client's damages.

F. Damage Caps

Michigan does not impose statutory caps on damages in non-medical professional malpractice cases. Economic damages are fully recoverable.

G. Privity Requirements

Legal Malpractice: Generally requires privity of contract. Friedman v. Dozorc, 412 Mich. 1 (1981).

Accountant Malpractice: Third parties may recover if they were the intended beneficiaries of the engagement. Bacco Constr. Co. v. American Colloid Co., 148 Mich. App. 397 (1986).

H. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Michigan recognizes breach of fiduciary duty as a separate cause of action. Professionals who occupy positions of trust may be liable for breach of fiduciary duties. Vicencio v. Ramirez, 211 Mich. App. 501 (1995).

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to services provided to [Client Name], including but not limited to:

• Complete client file (paper and electronic)
• All correspondence and communications
• Work product, drafts, and notes
• Billing records and time entries
• Engagement letters and contracts
• Emails and electronic communications
• Calendar entries and scheduling records
• Internal memoranda and analysis
• Research materials
• Any recorded statements
• Professional liability insurance policies
• Quality control and review documentation

Modification, destruction, or concealment of any records will result in claims for spoliation, sanctions, and adverse inference instructions under Michigan law. Brenner v. Kolk, 226 Mich. App. 149 (1997).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Engagement and Relationship

[Client Name] engaged [Professional/Firm Name] on or about [Date] to provide [type of professional services]:

Nature of Engagement:
- [Description of services to be provided]
- [Scope of representation/engagement]
- [Key objectives]

Fee Arrangement:
- [Description of fee arrangement]
- [Total fees paid: $Amount]

B. Chronology of Negligent Services

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

C. The Professional Error(s)

[Describe specifically what the professional(s) did wrong]

D. Discovery of Malpractice

Our client [did not discover / could not have reasonably discovered] the malpractice until [Date], when [describe discovery circumstances].

IV. STANDARD OF CARE VIOLATIONS

A. Applicable Standard of Care

Under Michigan law, [Defendant Professional] was required to exercise the degree of care, skill, and proficiency commonly exercised by ordinarily skillful, careful, and prudent [profession type] at the time of the service.

Based on our expert's analysis, the applicable standard of care required [Defendant] to:

1. [Standard 1]
2. [Standard 2]
3. [Standard 3]

B. Breaches of the Standard of Care

Breach 1: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 2: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 3: [Detailed description of breach]

C. Expert Opinion

We have retained [Expert Name], a [licensed/certified] [profession] with [number] years of experience in [relevant area]. [Expert Name] has concluded that:

1. [Defendant Professional] breached the applicable standard of care;
2. These breaches were a direct and proximate cause of [Client Name]'s damages; and
3. Had appropriate professional services been rendered, [describe avoided outcome].

V. CAUSATION

A. "But For" Causation

But for the defendant's breach of the standard of care, our client would not have suffered the damages described herein. This claim satisfies the "but for" test for actual causation.

B. Proximate Causation

The defendant's professional negligence was a proximate cause of our client's damages. The harm suffered was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach of duty.

C. Case-Within-A-Case (If Applicable to Legal Malpractice)

[If legal malpractice:] We are prepared to prove that but for counsel's negligence, the underlying matter would have resulted in a more favorable outcome for our client. Simko v. Blake, 448 Mich. 648 (1995).

VI. DAMAGES

A. Direct Financial Losses

As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's professional negligence, our client has suffered:

Primary Damages:
- [Loss 1]: $[Amount]
- [Loss 2]: $[Amount]
- [Loss 3]: $[Amount]

B. Consequential Damages

C. Professional Fees Paid

D. Interest and Incidental Costs

• Prejudgment interest per M.C.L. Section 600.6013
• Court costs and filing fees
• Expert witness fees

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the clear breach of professional standards, the extent of our client's damages, and the strength of liability evidence, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, expiring at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on [Expiration Date].

VIII. RESPONSE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED

Please provide:

1. All professional liability insurance policies applicable to this claim
2. Policy limits for each applicable policy
3. Any self-insured retention amounts
4. Excess/umbrella coverage information
5. Consent to extend statute of limitations during settlement discussions

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Engagement agreement/retainer
• Correspondence between client and professional
• Work product demonstrating errors
• Documentation of damages
• Expert curriculum vitae
• Chronology of events

X. CONCLUSION

This case presents clear professional negligence that caused significant financial harm to our client. The defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care required of [profession type] in Michigan.

We are prepared to litigate this matter in the [Circuit Court/District Court] of [County] County, Michigan if necessary. However, we believe early resolution serves all parties' interests.

Please respond by the deadline stated above.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Michigan State Bar No. P[Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

MICHIGAN PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE PRACTICE NOTES

• Dual Limitations/Repose: 2 years from discovery OR 6 years from act (whichever comes first).

• Discovery Rule: Limitations begins when plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the claim.

• Modified Comparative Fault: Recovery barred if plaintiff is more than 50% at fault.

• Expert Testimony Required: Expert witness is necessary except in cases of obvious negligence.

• No Damage Caps: No statutory limits on non-medical professional malpractice damages.

• Case Evaluation: Michigan requires case evaluation in civil cases (M.C.L. Section 600.4901).

• Prejudgment Interest: Calculated per M.C.L. Section 600.6013 from date complaint is filed.

• Attorney-Client Relationship: Must prove existence of relationship for legal malpractice.

• Venue: Generally in county where defendant resides or where cause of action arose.

• Affidavit of Merit: Required for medical malpractice; not required for other professional malpractice.

This template is specific to Michigan law. Professional malpractice claims require careful attention to limitations periods and expert requirements. Always verify current law and consult with qualified Michigan counsel.