Plaintiff David
Sanders was injured after being physically attacked by defendants Shawn Spohn
and Zachary Pierce, both of whom were intoxicated after being served alcohol at
the two defendant bars, Tumbleweed Saloon and Chauncey’s Pub. Plaintiff and his companion that evening consulted
with an attorney, who sent a letter to one of the defendant bars, stating that
he was “represent[ing]” the injured plaintiff and requesting that the bar
preserve any security videos. The
dramshop act provides that a retail alcohol licensee may not “sell, furnish, or
give alcoholic liquor to a person who is visibly intoxicated.” MCL 436.1801(2). The notice provision of the dramshop act, MCL
436.1801(4), states that a plaintiff must “give written notice to all
defendants within 120 days after entering an attorney-client relationship for
the purpose of pursuing a claim under this section.” The trial court granted summary disposition
to the defendant bars, holding that, despite the initial lawyer’s affidavit to
the contrary, plaintiffs and that attorney had an attorney-client relationship
at the time of the letter and, therefore, the later notice by plaintiffs’
current counsel was untimely. The Court
of Appeals reversed in a split unpublished opinion. The majority held that there was no “meeting
of the minds” in support of the finding of an attorney-client relationship and
that a genuine question of fact existed regarding the existence of such a
relationship. The dissent opined that
there was no outstanding question of fact and that the trial court did not
clearly err in concluding that an attorney-client relationship existed when the
lawyer sent the letter. The Supreme Court
has directed oral argument on defendant bars’ application for leave to appeal
to address whether the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that there was
a genuine question of fact as to whether there was an attorney-client
relationship between plaintiffs and the attorney who sent the initial letter on
their behalf to one of the defendants.