Innovative legal expertise for innovative people.
Gielow Groom Terpstra & McEvoy is a boutique law firm concentrating its practice on the representation of businesses, business owners and entrepreneurs.
Rapid, relevant assistance without breaking the budget.
At Gielow Groom Terpstra & McEvoy, we combine our expertise with the most efficient technology, systems and staffing models to deliver timely and quality legal services at an affordable price.
A perfect match.
Gielow Groom Terpstra & McEvoy covers all facets of the law, with each attorney offering a unique perspective along with broad experience.

At Gielow Groom Terpstra & McEvoy, we do things a little differently.

Our members have varied backgrounds and specialties, but share a common vision for the practice of law. We believe that the traditional law firm model is broken. Today’s modern law firm must deliver rapid, relevant assistance without breaking the budget. That is why we borrowed from the manufacturing “lean” model and established our firm with a commitment to deliver outstanding legal service with reduced cost at the provider level. Our rates are, on average, much lower than the rates of our counterparts in larger law firms. And in light of our cost structure, we can be creative with our billing models.

Recent News

WHO DETERMINES IRREPARABLE HARM IN CONTRACTS: THE PARTIES OR THE COURT?
Posted on March 21, 2016
Most contracts containing covenants not to compete or non-solicitation provisions also contain language within those provisions stating that any breach or threatened breach will result in “irreparable harm,” and that it may be difficult to determine or adequately compensate the non-breaching party through monetary damages. Contract drafters include this language because courts only award two types of remedies: (1) remedies at law – or monetary damages; and (2) equitable relief – or non-monetary damages. Enforcement of these types of provisions lends itself to equitable relief. In other words, if a person breaches a covenant not to compete by working... MORE
Correction of Work Clause Does Not Limit Builder Warranties
Posted on March 10, 2016
On March 4, 2016, the Michigan Supreme Court – by refusing to grant leave – essentially affirmed a Michigan Court of Appeals opinion that refused to limit a “Correction of Work” clause to the 18-month period as stated in the contract. Spring Harbor Club Condo Ass’n v Wright, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 23, 2015 (Docket No. 321507). At issue in Spring Harbor was a construction contract that provided no express time limit on the builder’s standard warranty that the work would be good quality, free from defects and in conformity with the... MORE
Same-Sex Adoption Upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court
Posted on March 9, 2016
On March 7, 2016, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that refused to recognize a Georgia adoption and denied parental rights to a same-sex parent. VL v EL, 577 US ____ (2016). Previous to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling, a Georgia court entered an adoption order making V.L. the legal parent of three children that V.L. and V.L.’s same-sex companion, E.L., had raised from birth. When V.L. and E.L. later separated, V.L. petitioned for custody and parenting time in Alabama, where the couple had lived together. Although the lower court granted V.L. parenting... MORE
See More Posts