Court Opinion

ID: 9631077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:28:36.522739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:48.421050
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
There is a jury demand in this case, and I concur that the case should be remanded to the district court for further discovery relating to the underlying causes of action. The record does not contain a written contract between the parties or documents explaining the reciprocal undertakings of the parties, but the parties are clearly in conflict about the nature of the legal representation and duties undertaken by Gowl-ings.
We reach no conclusion about the scope of liability, causation, damages, or whether there is in fact a plausible or valid breach of contract or other legal duties. In the absence of a complete record, it would be premature for us to make any findings or conclusions with regard to the underlying causes of action. Under the Seventh Amendment, the plaintiff is entitled tó a jury trial on any disputed issues of material fact. After proper instructions, it will be up to the jury to determine the nature of the legal representation undertaken by the defendants and whether civil liability is foreclosed by the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct stating that the Rules “do not ... give rise to a cause of action ... or for damages.... ” The District Court should set the case for trial giving the parties a reasonable period of time to complete discovery.