ALLAN FALK PC V LINDA OLSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ALLAN FALK PC,
UNPUBLISHED
December 7, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 292855
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 08-102027-CK
LINDA OLSON,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and BANDSTRA and MURRAY, JJ.
O’CONNELL, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
Plaintiff, an appellate attorney, entered into a valid contract for legal services with
defendant. Plaintiff performed the services and is seeking compensation pursuant to the terms of
the contract. Defendant admits entering into the contract and admits that plaintiff performed
services for her, but claims that a third party, who is not a party to the contract, is responsible for
a portion of the attorney fees.1 I disagree. The proper process to resolve this dispute is for
defendant to honor the terms and conditions of her contract with plaintiff and then to seek
reimbursement from the third party for any portion of the services attributable to the third party.2
This is not a complicated case. I would remand this case to the trial court with
instructions to determine the total number of hours plaintiff performed under the contract,
1
The convoluted process used by the trial court and the majority opinion to resolve this dispute
is inapplicable to the facts of this case. This case involves a signed contract by the parties with a
set hourly fee. This is not a case in which a trial court is required to determine reasonable
attorney fees. Also, MCR 8.122 is inapplicable because this case was not commenced “on
verified written complaint of a client.”
2
A third party’s acceptance of responsibility for a portion of the contract does not relieve
defendant of her responsibilities under the contract.
-1-
subtract the number of hours for which plaintiff has been paid, and multiply the remaining
unpaid hours by the contractual rate. The resulting figure should be entered as the judgment.3
I would reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
3
I agree with the majority opinion that the figures used by the trial court to reach its conclusion
in this matter do not make any accounting sense; the figures simply do not add up. But, I
disagree with the majority opinion that using correct figures to arrive at a just solution is
“immaterial” to a proper resolution of this case. While the majority’s concept of close may be
appropriate if we were playing a game of horseshoes, it is not a concept commonly used in the
legal system.
-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.