W. Brad Groom
(231) 747-7160 Ext. 103
brad@ggtmlaw.com

Education

Mercy Law School, J.D. 1980, magna cum laude

University of Michigan, B.A. 1976

Memberships

State Bar of Michigan

Western and Eastern District of Michigan Federal Courts

Western and Eastern District of Michigan Bankruptcy Courts

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Brad concentrates his practice in the areas of commercial litigation, creditors’ rights, employment and manufacturing.

Experience

Prior to engaging in the full-time practice of law, Brad worked for a steel heat-treating company in Grand Rapids driving trucks, operating heavy equipment and lifts, welding, blasting and materials testing. Brad put himself through law school by working in banking, working in the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office and clerking for private law firms in the Detroit area.

Brad enjoys resolution of hotly contested, complex matters, including “bet the company” litigation. Resolution includes negotiating favorable results with opposite parties, mediation or arbitration and, if resolution is impossible, taking a matter to trial.

Sample Projects

  • Recovered over $1M for elderly client of marital assets transferred out of the marital estate.
  • Successfully prevented major cell phone company from erecting 120-foot-tall cell tower on school property in close proximity to residential neighborhood.
  • Defended minority stockholders in fraud claim involving a stock redemption to a successful conclusion in Michigan Supreme Court.
  • Defended unlicensed contractor in homeowner litigation to a “No Cause” jury verdict and obtained sanctions against Plaintiffs, which recovered all attorney fees expended in the defense.
  • Developed the “model” for unpaid subcontractors in Michigan Construction Lien litigation to pool liens in a limited liability company to prevent owner/developer from acquiring project by bidding a single isolated lien amount to the detriment of the other lien claimants.
  • Successfully represented doctor groups in forcing hospital-owned condominium to acquire doctor-owned units.

Education

Mercy Law School, J.D. 1980, magna cum laude

University of Michigan, B.A. 1976

Memberships

State Bar of Michigan

Western and Eastern District of Michigan Federal Courts

Western and Eastern District of Michigan Bankruptcy Courts

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Recent News

Michigan Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Amended – Elimination of Buy-Downs for Small UST Owners and Retroactive Reduction in Deductibles
Posted on January 3, 2017
2016 closed out with some good news for underground storage tank (UST) owners in Michigan. On December 21, 2016, Governor Snyder signed House Bill 5599 into law (PA 380 of 2016), amending UST corrective action funding provisions of Part 215 of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), 1994 PA 451, as amended. The most significant impact of this amendment is two-fold: the lowering of deductibles (from $50,000 to $10,000 per claim for owners/operators of eight or more USTs, and from $50,000 to $2,000 per claim for UST owners/operators of seven or fewer USTs). Further, these lower deductible... MORE
Happy Holidays!
Posted on December 22, 2016
GGTM Law is spreading joy this holiday season with the help of the Mona Shores Choir. Please enjoy viewing our Christmas card while listening to this beautiful arrangement of a Christmas classic sung by the Mona Shores Choir. Wishing each of you Happy Holidays and a Joyful New Year!... MORE
Non-Competes Between Commercial Ventures to be Assessed Under Rule of Reason
Posted on July 18, 2016
In Innovation Ventures v Liquid Manufacturing, LLC, Michigan Supreme Court Docket No. 150591 (decided July 14, 2016), the Michigan Supreme Court considered whether the validity of a covenant not to compete should be determined by looking at the factors provided in MCL 445.774a or by using the “rule of reason” analysis. MCL 445.774a sets forth factors for a court to consider in analyzing covenants not to compete in an employer-employee context. The covenant not to compete considered in this case, however, was in a written agreement between two businesses. The statutory factors include the following: (1) duration of the... MORE
See More Posts