Sommers Schwartz attorneys Matthew Turner and Sara Mićković filed a legal malpractice lawsuit for a widow, her late husband’s estate, and the family real estate company she inherited when he died in September 2021. She also inherited two lawsuits her husband’s own family had brought against him: one filed by his mother’s trust over loans it claimed he never repaid, and one filed by his brother’s company claiming ownership of two parcels the family business had bought years earlier.
In 2023, she hired the defendant law firm, in part because she wanted lawyers who spoke Arabic, her primary language. Two of its attorneys, who held themselves out as experienced business and real estate litigators, handled both cases for a year.
The first case rested on four alleged loans the client had documentation to refute. The complaint alleges the firm never conducted the discovery needed to show that the largest sum came from an account her husband already owned jointly with his parents, never moved to dispose of claims the evidence contradicted, and never responded when the opposing party moved for summary disposition. The firm withdrew on Aug. 28, 2024, one day after the deadline to answer that motion.
Replacement counsel secured an extension and filed the missing motions; most claims were dismissed, but the $254,000 claim survived. In December 2024, the court entered an amended judgment for roughly $290,542.88 against the estate, which is now on appeal. That Judgment would not have been entered if the Defendants had conducted the necessary discovery and filed a timely motion for summary disposition documenting that the bank account funds belonged to her husband.
The second case went to trial in January 2024. No one from the firm appeared because they failed to obtain a copy of a stipulated order to adjourn dates they prepared and mailed to the court for entry in which the court set a trial date. The court entered a default judgment and held a hearing to determine damages. The firm told her she had lost both parcels, though the opposing company had dropped its claim to the parcel holding a commercial building during the hearing. She did not learn she had held uncontested possession until April 2026, by which time the building had sat unattended for more than two years, sustaining significant structural damage and total loss of its contents. While the default was set aside, the client has incurred a penalty of $ 6,359.54 and continues to litigate possession of the vacant parcel.
For that year of work, the firm invoiced roughly $290,445.17. The complaint alleges reasonable fees should not have exceeded $100,000, and that replacement attorneys charged more than $400,000 to repair what the firm left behind.
The lawsuit seeks compensation for the judgment against the estate, the excessive fees, the cost of correcting the firm’s errors, the court-ordered sanction, the waste of the real estate parcel and its contents, harm to the client’s credit and reputation, and emotional distress.
Our attorneys have been featured on local and national media outlets, including:
