About the Firm
Mr. Doerr founded Doerr Law Firm after spending the first 12 years of his career at a national law firm, where Mr. Doerr advanced to member/partner after just 7 years. At the firm, Mr. Doerr learned how to handle every aspect of the case, from legal research and writing to trials. Mr. Doerr has had success in a variety of trial and appellate courts, both state and federal. In addition, Mr. Doerr has successfully resolved matters through various forms of alternative dispute resolution. Mr. Doerr represents individuals and businesses of various sizes, from small businesses to Fortune 500 companies. He is also a trained mediator.
At Doerr Law Firm, Mr. Doerr continues to handle every aspect of the case. Clients enjoy the peace of mind that comes with knowing that their lead attorney will handle all tasks in the case. At Doerr Law Firm, the practice of law is a profession, not a business. A business has customers with one goal in mind, profits. Mr. Doerr has clients with one goal in mind -- achieving a great result for the client.
Awards & Recognition
Recognized as a Top 100 attorney by Michigan Super Lawyers®, 2020-2022
Recognized as a "Go To Lawyer" for Real Estate by Michigan Lawyers Weekly, 2021
Recognized by Michigan Super Lawyers® for Business Litigation, 2013-2022
Recognized as a Rising Star by Michigan Super Lawyers®, 2012
DBusiness Top Lawyer 2021-2022
Co-Chair of OCBA's Business Court Committee in 2021, winning committee of the year
Avvo's Clients' Choice Award, 2016-2018
"Superb" 10 out of 10 Rating on Avvo
10.0 Lawyer Rating on Justia
Recognized by Elite Lawyer, 2018-2021
Legal Aid and Defender Association's Pro Bono Spirit Award, 2004, 2015
University of Michigan, B.S.
James B. Angell Scholar
Wayne State University, J.D.
Magna cum laude
Order of the Coif
Licenses, Admissions, Training
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan
Completed the Institute of Continuing Legal Education's
General Civil Mediator Training
Completed Practical Experience Program at Oakland Mediation Center
Dykema Gossett PLLC
Best Practices for Drafting Engagement Agreements, Michigan Bar Journal, May 2022, Vol. 101, No. 5
Choosing the Right Mediator for Your Business Dispute, LACHES, March 2022 (No. 646)
Participating in Court Hearings via Zoom (ICLE Top Tips in Ten Minutes), May 2020
Regulating Short-Term Vacation Rentals in Michigan Using Existing Remedies and New Legislation, Michigan Real Property Review, Spring & Summer 2018
Two Lawsuits Are Not Better Than One: Giving District Courts the Power to Award Money Damages Exceeding $25,000 in Summary Proceedings, LACHES, June/July 2016 (No. 589)
Universal City Studios v. Corley: Web Owners Beware, Do Not Speak Of Your Neighbor's Website, Fall 2003, 48 Wayne L.Rev. 1527
Memberships & Involvement
Michigan State Bar Foundation
Oakland County Bar Association
ADR Committee (2018-19 Co-Chair)
Business Court Committee (2020-21 Co-Chair)
Circuit Court Committee
Real Estate Committee
Oakland County Bar Foundation
Oakland Mediation Center
State Bar of Michigan
Real Property Section
Solo & Small Firm Section (2022-23 Vice Chair)
University of Michigan
Hamood v. ZenMuse, LLC, 2020 WL 5739690 (Mich. App. 2020)
The Michigan Court of Appeals described this case as "the product of a contentious dispute between Nathan Alexander Hamood, Jamal John Hamood, Anita Baker, and ZenMuse LLC (ZenMuse), a limited liability company that was created by Baker, who is its president and sole shareholder." In the trial court, plaintiff obtained a $165,014 default judgment against ZenMuse. Almost a year later, ZenMuse filed a motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to MCR 2.612(B), "Defendant Not Personally Notified." The trial court denied the motion, finding that ZenMuse was properly served. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding "because personal jurisdiction over ZenMuse was necessary and acquired, because ZenMuse (via Baker) has asserted without contradiction that it had no knowledge of this lawsuit, because ZenMuse entered an appearance within one year of the final judgment, because ZenMuse has demonstrated meritorious defenses to both of Nathan's claims as currently pleaded, and because there has been no showing that setting aside the default judgment will prejudice any innocent third parties, ZenMuse satisfied all five elements to be entitled to relief from judgment pursuant to MCR 2.612(B)."
J-Bob LLC v. Mike's Garage / LaRocca's Towing, LLC, 2017 WL 395288 (E.D. Mich. 2017)
Successful defense of a lawsuit filed by parties claiming a towing company wrongfully converted and acquired title to a motorhome valued at $350,000. The plaintiffs asserted claims of conversion, replevin, fraud, and abuse of process, seeking treble damages exceeding $1 million. In lieu of answering the complaint, Doerr Law Firm, on behalf of the company, filed a motion to dismiss. In the motion, the company argued that Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was governed by Michigan’s abandonment statute, MCL § 257.252a, et al, which the plaintiffs failed to honor. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan agreed, finding that parties could not circumvent Michigan’s statutory scheme by putting different labels on their claims. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 493 Mich. 98; 825 N.W.2d 329 (2012)
The Michigan Supreme Court held the plaintiffs must show that they were prejudiced by a purported failure to comply with Michigan’s foreclosure by advertisement statute in order to set aside an allegedly defective or irregular foreclosure. As of December 2017, this case has been cited over 750 times.
Oxford Inv. Group v. Fourslides, Inc., 2012 WL 2913616 (Mich. App. 2012)
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by the Oakland County Circuit Court finding various companies liable on a breach of a contract claim seeking over $1 million in damages. The courts rejected the companies’ argument that the transaction documents were ambiguous because they were not specifically identified in the documents.
Matrix Constr. v. Malow, 2006 WL 399762 (Mich. App. 2006)
The Michigan Court of Appeals held Barton Malow, as construction manager, did not owe any recognized separate and distinct duty to a subcontractor as a matter of law and, therefore, the Wayne County Circuit Court correctly granted summary disposition to Barton Malow.
The above, select cases are for informational purposes only. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Founder & Managing partner