Statute of Limitations for Legal Malpractice in Michigan

6 min read

Published April 8, 2026 • By DocketMath Team

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently — verify all citations with current official sources.

Overview

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Statute Of Limitations calculator.

Michigan’s legal malpractice statute of limitations is 6 years, measured under MCL § 767.24(1) from the time the claim accrues. In plain terms, if you believe a lawyer’s conduct harmed you, Michigan law generally requires you to file your malpractice claim within that 6-year window, assuming the claim accrued when the harm was or should have been discovered for accrual purposes.

For many people, the hardest part isn’t finding that “6 years” number—it’s identifying when the clock started for their case. DocketMath’s statute-of-limitations tool helps you work through common timing inputs and see how the resulting deadline changes when accrual or relevant dates differ.

Note: Michigan’s default rule for legal malpractice is the general 6-year period in MCL § 767.24(1). This article describes that general rule and highlights key procedural timing considerations—without claiming every edge case is covered.

Limitation period

Michigan’s general statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims is 6 years under MCL § 767.24(1). Michigan’s legislature set this outside the medical-malpractice framework; it’s a standalone malpractice limitations provision for claims against attorneys.

What the 6-year period generally covers

A statute of limitations deadline controls whether a case is filed too late. If the filing date is beyond the deadline, the other side can typically seek dismissal based on timeliness.

The date that matters: claim accrual

Even with a fixed length (6 years), the start date can shift depending on when the claim accrued. Accrual timing is fact-specific, and courts may consider when the plaintiff knew or should have known enough to bring the claim.

Common accrual-related factors that often affect deadlines include:

When the underlying harm occurred (e.g., an adverse outcome in a case the attorney handled)
When the client discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) the lawyer’s alleged wrongdoing
Whether later events are merely consequences of earlier conduct, or instead reflect a new actionable wrong

Because you’re aiming for accuracy, it helps to separate:

Event date(s) (what happened, and when)
Discovery / awareness date (when you knew or should have known)
Filing date (the date the complaint is filed)

How DocketMath changes the output

DocketMath’s statute-of-limitations calculator (tool link: /tools/statute-of-limitations) is designed so your deadline updates as you adjust inputs. Typically, the calculation works like this:

Choose the start date you believe the claim accrued
Add 6 years per the general rule
Generate a computed latest filing date

If you select a later accrual date than you initially guessed, the “latest filing date” moves later by roughly the difference between those start dates.

Checklist for better calculations

Warning: A 6-year limit does not automatically mean “file exactly 6 years after you were disappointed.” Deadlines often turn on accrual and the case-specific discovery/timing facts. Use the calculator to model scenarios, not to replace a careful review of dates.

Key exceptions

Michigan’s statute of limitations for legal malpractice has a general 6-year rule in MCL § 767.24(1). Beyond that, the most practical “exceptions” people run into usually come from timing doctrines and case-specific accrual disputes, rather than an entirely different statutory time period.

No claim-type-specific sub-rule found (use the general default)

Your jurisdiction data indicates no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. That means the general/default period applies rather than a separate shorter or longer time frame for a particular subtype of malpractice claim.

So, unless the facts point to a recognized timing doctrine that affects when the clock starts or stops, the baseline is still:

**6 years (general rule)

Timing issues that commonly affect deadlines (without changing the baseline period)

Even when the statute says “6 years,” courts may still address questions like:

Accrual dispute: Did the claim accrue earlier or later than you think?
Discovery-related timing: When should a reasonable person have known enough to sue?
Continuing harm vs. single wrongful act: Was there a single act with later consequences, or ongoing malpractice that affects accrual timing?

Rather than treating these as “exceptions” that automatically extend the deadline, think of them as arguments about the correct timeline under the same 6-year framework.

Procedural posture and how it impacts timing

Two practical realities:

A claim filed after the deadline can be dismissed on timeliness grounds.
If a court determines the accrual date is earlier than the one you used, your case can become time-barred even if you filed within 6 years of a different milestone.

Pitfall: People often treat the “date of harm” as the accrual date, but the relevant timing analysis may center on when the claim could reasonably have been brought. If you’re unsure, run the calculator using multiple plausible accrual dates and compare the resulting deadlines.

Statute citation

Michigan’s general statute of limitations for legal malpractice is found in MCL § 767.24(1) (6 years).

General SOL period: 6 years
Statute: **MCL § 767.24(1)
Source: Michigan.gov (as reflected in your jurisdiction data)

Because the rule is statutory, the calculation typically looks like a date + 6 years model once you determine the accrual/start date.

Use the calculator

Use DocketMath to compute the latest likely filing deadline based on the start/accrual date you choose for your scenario.

Steps to run DocketMath (practical workflow)

Go to /tools/statute-of-limitations
Enter the accrual/start date you believe applies under **MCL § 767.24(1)
Confirm the calculator is using Michigan’s 6-year general rule
Review the computed latest filing date
If you’re uncertain about accrual timing, run two scenarios:
- One using an earlier discovery/accrual date
- One using a later accrual/discovery date

How to interpret the output

When the calculator adds 6 years to your accrual date, your “latest filing date” should shift in predictable increments:

Later start date → later deadline
Earlier start date → earlier deadline

This is useful for planning, especially if you have competing milestones (e.g., judgment date vs. discovery date).

Input guide (what to choose)

If you believe you knew the basis for the claim at the time of an adverse ruling, consider using the adverse outcome date as the start.
If you only became aware of the malpractice later (documents, communications, or other facts), consider using your best estimate of when the claim could reasonably be brought.

Note: DocketMath provides a calculation framework. It doesn’t determine accrual as a matter of law for your specific facts—timing disputes can be outcome-determinative. If you’re facing a tight deadline, consider discussing timing with a qualified attorney.

Sources and references

Start with the primary authority for Michigan and confirm the effective date before relying on any output. If the rule has been amended, update the inputs and rerun the calculation.

MCL § 600.5807