What

Where

Trusted Across Michigan

2,500

+

Verified Listings

Built for Clients & Attorneys

Every Practice Area

Your Search Starts Here:
Michigan Top Lawyers makes it simple to find the right attorney.

Our Top Rated Lawyers

Popular Exclusive Listings In Our Directory

The Elder Care Firm

The Elder Care Firm

Be the first one to rate!

860 W Grand River Ave

Practice Areas : Elder Law

Seva Law Firm

Be the first one to rate!

1050 Wilshire Suite 335 Troy, MI 48084

Practice Areas : Insurance

Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.

Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.

Be the first one to rate!

101 West Big Beaver Road 10th Floor Columbia Center Troy, Michigan 48084

Practice Areas : Commercial Real Estate

Freel Professional Corp

Freel Professional Corp

Be the first one to rate!

540 West Lake St., Suite 2 Tawas City, MI 48763

Practice Areas : Admiralty and Maritime Law

Davis Law Group PLLC

Davis Law Group PLLC

Be the first one to rate!

27600 Northwestern Hwy Ste 215 Southfield, MI 48034

Practice Areas : Criminal Law

Kathryn Wayne-Spindler & Associates

Kathryn Wayne-Spindler & Associates

Be the first one to rate!

425 West Huron Street, Suite 120 Milford, MI 48381

Practice Areas : Criminal Law

How it Works

It’s easy to find and book a lawyer and also to share your experience.

Find Your Lawyer

Find Your Lawyer

Explore top Michigan lawyers by city, practice area, and reviews.

Contact a Lawyer

Contact a Lawyer

Connect with trusted Michigan attorneys for fast, reliable help.

Review A Lawyer

Review A Lawyer

Rate Michigan lawyers and guide others to the best legal support.

Browse Lawyers

Find the Michigan Attorney for YOU!

Real Reviews from Clients

Across Michigan

Michigan Legal News

A New Regional Tribal Conservation District in Alaska

A New Regional Tribal Conservation District in Alaska

Tribal governments of the Bering Sea Interior Tribal Commission have established the Bering Sea Interior Tribal Conservation District (BSITCD) through a mutual agreement with USDA. It gives participating Tribes a shared way to set conservation priorities and coordinate technical, financial, and educational assistance, with subsistence at the center. Bering Sea Interior Tribal Commission – USDA Mutual Agreement storyDownload Source link

October 17, 2026

Employment – Unjust enrichment – Michigan Lawyers Weekly

Employment – Unjust enrichment – Michigan Lawyers Weekly

Where a defendant asserted a counterclaim for unjust enrichment, the counterclaim was not well grounded in fact after reasonable inquiry and was interposed for an improper purpose, so a sanction of $48,940 should be imposed on the defendant. “Defendant’s March 8, 2023 counterclaim pleaded three counts: Count I, breach of contract; Count II, breach of fiduciary duty; and Count III, unjust enrichment. Count I alleged that a valid employment contract specifically governed Plaintiff’s compensation and that Plaintiff breached it by accepting and retaining compensation allegedly not authorized by the agreement. … Count II alleged that Plaintiff breached fiduciary duties by retaining the same alleged salary, bonus, and vacation overpayments. … Count III incorporated the preceding allegations and alleged that Plaintiff was unjustly enriched by more than $25,000 in salary, an $18,000 bonus, and more than $5,000 in vacation pay. … “… The sanctions determination on remand rests on Count III, the unjust-enrichment counterclaim that was pursued to verdict, and on the factual allegations incorporated into it. … “Considering the objective circumstances existing when the counterclaim was filed and pursued, the Court finds that the primary purpose of the unjust-enrichment claim was to impose a financial consequence on Plaintiff after his departure, rather than simply to correct an objectively identified accounting error. The salary had been deliberately agreed to and knowingly continued, yet Defendant sought to recoup it only after resignation. Management knew the facts surrounding the approved vacation and remote-work week. The bonus had been intentionally paid before the criterion later used to demand a full clawback had even been checked. Defendant’s own decisionmaker admitted that Plaintiff could have kept the same allegedly unearned bonus if he remained employed. … “If equity truly required repayment of an improperly retained benefit, continued employment would not erase the asserted overpayment. Defendant’s admitted position was effectively: stay and keep the money; leave and repay it. In context with Banga’s statement that Plaintiff had ‘done so wrong to us,’ the Court finds that the primary purpose of the unjust-enrichment counterclaim was to injure Plaintiff financially because he left. That satisfies MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(i) and MCR 1.109(E)(5)(c). … “The Court independently finds frivolousness under subsection (ii). The relevant facts were not hidden by Plaintiff or dependent on uncertain third-party information. They concerned Defendant’s own payroll decisions, management communications, compensation practices, and bonus calculations. A reasonable prefiling inquiry would have revealed that the salary was knowingly agreed to and continued; one week of vacation had been approved and management knew of the intended remote-work week; and the $18,000 bonus was intentionally paid before Defendant had checked the scorecard criterion. The demand letter attached to the pleading itself further showed that the final financial component supported a $12,000 bonus and that the full clawback depended on the separate scorecard theory. “… Defendant’s own records and its own corporate decisionmaker undercut material factual premises incorporated into Count III before it was filed. The Court therefore finds that Defendant had no reasonable basis to believe material facts underlying its unjust-enrichment position were true as pleaded. MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(ii). The same record establishes the absence of the reasonable factual inquiry required by MCR 1.109(E)(5)(b).” Lindeman v. Angstrom Tubular Solutions, LLC; MiLW No. 10-111201, 9 pages; Oakland Circuit Court; Valentine, J. Source link

October 16, 2026

Tenth Circuit Sitting En Banc Holds Indian Status is an Affirmative Defense a Criminal Defendant Must Prove

Tenth Circuit Sitting En Banc Holds Indian Status is an Affirmative Defense a Criminal Defendant Must Prove

Here is the consolidated opinion in United States v. Hebert and United States v. Ruiz. Prior post with materials here. Source link

October 16, 2026

Featured in

AI Lawyer Finder

© 2025 Michigan Top Lawyers. All Rights Reserved. Powered by SolutionsPal | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service