## Facts

- Arthur Simko was a passenger in a car whose driver drew police attention by speeding and flashing the vehicle’s lights because Simko was experiencing a medical problem.
- Police searched the car and found drug paraphernalia, pistols, ammunition, and a substance containing cocaine.
- Simko was prosecuted for possession of over 650 grams of cocaine and for possessing a firearm during the commission or attempted commission of a felony.
- Marvin Blake, an attorney, represented Simko at trial.
- Simko was convicted and sentenced to life without parole.
- After Simko spent more than two years in prison, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed his conviction based on the trial court’s denial of Blake’s directed-verdict motion (i.e., the appellate court concluded the directed verdict should have been granted).
- Simko, along with his wife and daughter, sued Blake for legal malpractice arising out of the criminal representation.
- The Simkos alleged Blake was negligent for failing to call Simko’s wife and physician as witnesses to explain Simko’s medical condition and for failing to ascertain the name and location of the hotel where Simko had stayed the preceding day (which they alleged would have prevented impeachment), along with broader claims of inadequate investigation and preparation.
- The trial court granted Blake’s motion for summary disposition, and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review to address the scope of an attorney’s duty/standard of care in a malpractice claim based on criminal-defense representation and whether the complaint stated an actionable claim.

## Issues

1. Does an attorney’s duty to a client in Michigan extend beyond providing representation that is legally sufficient to vindicate the client’s interests (i.e., must counsel do “more than legally adequate” work to avoid malpractice)?
2. Under Michigan’s standard of care and the attorney-judgment rule, did the Simkos’ allegations about witness choices and additional investigation state a malpractice claim sufficient to survive summary disposition?

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed summary disposition for Blake.
- The Court held that an attorney’s duty is to act as would an attorney of ordinary learning, judgment, or skill under the same or similar circumstances; the duty does not require extraordinary diligence or the best possible performance.
- The Court applied the attorney-judgment rule: when an attorney acts in good faith and in an honest belief that actions and omissions are well founded in law and in the client’s best interest, the attorney is not liable for mere errors in judgment.
- The Court treated the challenged conduct—additional witness presentation and further investigation on the margins—as the type of judgment-laden trial choices that generally cannot support malpractice liability absent facts showing conduct outside ordinary professional competence.
- The Court also noted that Blake raised and preserved a dispositive legal defense through directed-verdict motions, and that defense ultimately resulted in reversal of Simko’s conviction, supporting the conclusion that Blake’s representation was legally sufficient to protect Simko’s interests.
- A dissent would have allowed the case to proceed beyond the pleading stage, reasoning that the alleged failures of preparation and investigation warranted factual development before dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Michigan legal malpractice generally requires: (1) an attorney-client relationship, (2) breach of the standard of care, (3) proximate causation, and (4) damages.
- The applicable standard of care is ordinary professional competence: counsel must act as an attorney of ordinary learning, judgment, or skill would act in similar circumstances; the law does not demand perfection or extraordinary diligence.
- Under the attorney-judgment rule, malpractice liability does not arise from good-faith strategic or judgment calls, even if a different lawyer later claims another course might have been better; liability is not based on hindsight second-guessing.
- Decisions such as which witnesses to call and how to develop supporting facts are often matters of professional judgment; a plaintiff must plead and prove more than a disagreement with tactics to show a breach of duty.
- A criminal defendant’s later success on appeal (here, reversal based on a preserved directed-verdict issue) can be relevant to evaluating whether the attorney provided legally sufficient representation and whether the malpractice allegations show a cognizable breach and causation.

## Conclusion

Simko v. Blake holds that Michigan attorneys are measured by an ordinary-skill standard and are protected from malpractice liability for good-faith judgment calls in litigation; because the Simkos’ claims largely attacked Blake’s tactical decisions and Blake had preserved a dispositive defense that ultimately led to reversal of the conviction, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed summary disposition for the attorney.


Simko v. Blake, 532 N.W.2d 842 (1995)