Can an attorney terminate the attorney-client relationship prior to the Circuit Court issuing a JUDGMENT/Order in the client's case?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Can an attorney terminate the attorney-client relationship prior to the Circuit Court issuing a JUDGMENT/Order in the client’s case? 2 A. Did the lower courts err in ruling that an attorney can terminate their relationship with a client prior to the Court signing and entering a JUDGMENT/Order in the client's case? B. Did the lower courts err in ruling that an attorney can terminate their relationship with a client without providing a copy of the Court’s JUDGMENT/Order to the client in their case? Cc. Could a contract for legal representation change the outcome of this ruling? Can an attorney terminate their relationship with a client prior to the Court signing and entering a JUDGMENT/Order in the client’s case and without providing a copy of the Court’s JUDGMENT/Order to the client if both parties signed a contract for legal representation? 8. Did the lower courts err by not interpreting the legal retainer agreement using the ordinary principals of contract law before determining the statute of limitations? 4, In determining the statute of limitations, does a disputed genuine issue of material facts exist if both parties disagree on when the attorney last provided legal services to the client and when evidence was provided to the court in support of the dates in question? i 5. In determining the statute of limitations, does a disputed genuine issue of material facts exist if both termination dates in question relate to the same matter as described in their contract, the same case number, and the same court? 6. Is summary disposition appropriate when the parties disagree on the attorney’s last day of legal representation? 7. Issummary disposition appropriate when the parties provided evidence that the attorney provided legal services in the same case as the attorney’s filed court appearance? 8. Did the lower courts err in ruling that legal representation for relief from taxation of costs and case evaluation sanctions is new, separate and distinct representation and is considered a remedial effort concerning past representation when: A. All the legal work provided to the client was in the same matter, the same case, and the same court. B. Ina civil case, Michigan Court Rules entitles the prevailing party (28) days after JUDGMENT to file for taxation of costs and case evaluation sanctions. MCR 2.625 C. According to MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iv): (a) In a civil case, (iv) a postjudgment order awarding or denying attorney fees and costs under MCR 2.403, 2.405, 2.625 or other law or court rule is a “final judgment” or “final order.” ii 9. Does an attorney’s last motion and order on the motion, in the-same case as the attorney’s filed appearance (in the underlying case), play a role in determining the statute of limitations in a future legal malpractice action? 10. If there is no court order and no client release of counsel, can a client reasonably assume that their attorney is acting on their behalf until the court’s final order in their case? 11.Can a client reasonably assume that their attorney is acting on their behalf up until they receive notification from their attorney that they will be taking no further action in their case and will be closing their file? 12. If post-judgment matters involving costs constitute continuing representation as MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iv) provides and Dr. Martin Trepel v Kohn, Milstein, Cohen and Hausfeld, Michigan Court of Appeals July 14, 2000 case piggybacks MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iv), how come the post-judgment matters involving costs in the Braspenick v Johnson Law, PLC. case are not considered continued representation? 13.If post-judgment matters involving costs constitute continuing representation, does a disputed material fact exist with Johnson Law, PLC. terminating the attorney-client relationship on August 21, 2014? 14. If post-judgment matters involving costs constitute continuing representation, was summary disposition appropriate? iii . 15. If the ruling in this case stands, what