Bank could not sue its lawyer for malpractice where later appeal vindicated his judgment in remedy sought
Fifth Third sued its attorneys, Couzens Lansky, et al., for malpractice. The bank people claimed that its attorneys gave it bad advice in suggesting a foreclosure by advertisement rather than a judicial foreclosure. The bank argued that it experienced significant unanticipated costs because the attorneys recommended a "full credit bid" and encountered a related title action and class action in response. The appellate court pointed out that the attorneys made a recommendation based upon their analysis of the law, and that their analysis proved to be accurate following appeals in the initial actions. Pursuant to the "attorney judgment" rule, the lawyers' analysis was "legitimized" and an "honest belief well founded in the law and in the best interest of the client..." On that basis, no malpractice had occurred and summary disposition was properly granted.