The Estates & Protected Individuals Code (MCL 700.1101 et seq.); Petition for attorney fees; Probate administration expenses; MCL 700.3803(2) & (3); Fees requested for services to the decedent’s law firm; MCL 700.3715(w); Whether MCR 5.313 barred attorney fees; Statutory construction; Robinson v. City of Lansing; MCL 700.3720 & .3721; Becht v. Miller; In re Estate of Valentino; In re Prichard Estate; Claim for a refund of an unearned retainer paid to the decedent before his death; Brewer v. Stoddard; Immediate property distribution; In re McNamera’s Estate; MCL 700.3805; In re Temple Marital Trust; Whether a constructive trust should have been imposed; Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n; Whether a surcharge request was a basis for imposing conditions on distribution; MCL 700.3808(4); MCL 700.3712; MCL 700.3703(2); Denial of an adjournment; Soumis v. Soumis; Sanctions; The automatic stay provision in MCL 600.867(1); Comerica Bank v. City of Adrian; The requested fees; Smith v. Khouri; Vittiglio v. Vittiglio; MRPC 1.5(a); Wood v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch.; Distinguishing Donnelley v. Donnelley; Personal representative (PR)

In these consolidated appeals, the court concluded in Docket No. 319145 that while the appellant-law firm was not entitled to some of the requested attorney fees, further proceedings were needed as to a portion of the fees. In Docket Nos. 319723 and 320189, it concluded that reconsideration of the appellee-PR’s petition for sanctions was also appropriate on remand. After the decedent, who operated a law practice as a sole practitioner, died, his wife was appointed PR. During the probate proceedings, appellant filed a petition requesting that the estate pay for services allegedly rendered in assisting the estate and PR. Appellant appealed the probate court’s order allowing the PR’s final account but disallowing the requested fees, and allowing the partial distribution of property. Appellant also appealed an order awarding attorney fees and costs as sanctions against appellant, and allowing the sanctions award to be reduced to a civil judgment. It also appealed the civil judgment. The court affirmed “the probate court’s decision to disallow any attorney fees sought by appellant in connection with legal services provided to the decedent’s former clients.” It also affirmed the probate court’s decision to consider the unnecessary expense caused by the commencement of “the proceeding as an intestate proceeding, with knowledge that the decedent had a will,” in evaluating whether the estate benefited from appellant’s services. However, because a question remained regarding the PR and the appellant’s “agreement as it related to the decedent’s law firm,” the court remanded for further proceedings on that issue. It rejected the appellant’s argument that “the probate court erred in allowing an immediate distribution of real property and office furniture” to the PR, without conditions. The court also rejected appellant’s claim that the probate court violated the automatic stay provision in MCL 600.867(1) by entering the order awarding sanctions. However, having concluded that remand was warranted for further proceedings to determine whether appellant was entitled to recover any fees that were compensable as an administrative expense of the estate, it also determined that reconsideration of the PR’s petition for sanctions was appropriate.