JAMES R CMEJREK V TERRENCE A BERTRAM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JAMES R. CMEJREK,
UNPUBLISHED
December 28, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 205259
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 96-003483 NZ
TERRENCE A. BERTRAM, TERRENCE A.
BERTRAM, P.C., and ANNA CRAWFORD
BERTRAM,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the orders granting summary disposition in favor of defendants. We
affirm.
This case arises from plaintiff’s representation of Elizabeth Dimcheff in various divorce and
post-divorce proceedings. According to plaintiff, defendant Terrance A. Bertram, an attorney,
counseled Dimcheff regarding the matter for which plaintiff was retained.1 Bertram also allegedly orally
defamed plaintiff by making derogatory statements to Dimcheff concerning plaintiff’s representation of
Dimcheff and by republishing the statements in legal documents in this and a previous lawsuit filed by
Dimcheff against plaintiff. Plaintiff filed the present action involving counts for tortious interference with
contractual relationship, breach of professional conduct, and defamation. The trial court granted
summary disposition of each count in favor of defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), (C)(8), and
(C)(7), respectively.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court improperly granted summary disposition in favor of
defendants on the count of tortious interference with a contractual relationship. We disagree. The
elements of tortious interference with a contractual relationship include the existence of a contract
between the plaintiff and a third party, a breach of that contract, and instigation of the breach by the
defendant without justification. Jim-Bob, Inc v Mehling, 178 Mich App 71, 95; 443 NW2d 451
(1989). Although plaintiff had a contract to represent Dimcheff, Dimcheff’s discharge of plaintiff did not
constitute a breach. “[A] client has an absolute right to discharge an attorney, the discharge is not a
-1
breach of contract.” Plunkett & Cooney, PC v Capitol Bancorp Ltd, 212 Mich App 325, 330; 536
NW2d 886 (1995).
Plaintiff next contends that the trial court improperly granted summary disposition in favor of
defendants on the count of breach of professional conduct. We disagree. Failure of an individual
practicing law to comply with the professional rules does not “give rise to a cause of action for
enforcement of a rule or for damages caused by failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition
imposed by a rule.” MRPC 1.0. Because the professional rules specifically state that a failure to
comply with the rules does not give rise to a cause of action for an attorney’s failure to comply, no
factual development in this case could establish the claim and justify recovery against defendant
Terrence Bertram. Plaintiff’s only recourse is to file a grievance with the Attorney Grievance
Commission if plaintiff believes that the violation in question rises to the level of misconduct stated in
MRPC 8.3. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that defendant Anna Crawford Bertram is an
attorney subject to the professional rules. Therefore, no factual development in this case could establish
the claim and justify recovery.
Last, plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly granted summary disposition in favor of
defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) on the defamation claim. Again, we disagree.
The statute of limitation for slander or libel actions is one year. MCL 600.5805(7); MSA
27A.5805(7). A slander or libel claim accrues “at the time the wrong was committed regardless of the
time when damage results.” Wilson v Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc, 190 Mich App 277, 279; 475
NW2d 388 (1991); see also MCL 600.5827; MSA 27A.5827. The alleged wrong is committed on
the date the slander or libel was published. Id.
Here, plaintiff filed the defamation claim regarding the alleged oral defamatory statement by
Bertram more than two years after the alleged statement was published. Consequently, this claim is
barred. MCL 600.5805(7); MSA 27A. 5805(7). Furthermore, with regard to the alleged
republication of the slander in subsequent legal writings, the alleged defamatory statements were relevant
to an issue raised in the course of a judicial proceeding. Therefore, defendants are absolutely privileged
from any liability with respect to the republication. Sanders v Leeson Air Conditioning Corp, 362
Mich 692, 695; 108 NW2d 761 (1961).
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
1
Defendant Anna Crawford Bertram is defendant Terrence A. Bertram’s wife. She is apparently
included as a defendant because she encouraged Terrence Bertram to talk with Dimcheff, who is a
personal friend of Crawford.
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.