A legal battle over alleged negligence has reached a conclusion, leaving the plaintiff without recourse. Michelle Dronso filed a complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court on May 2023 against Mallery, S.C., accusing them of legal malpractice. However, the court dismissed her case and denied her motion to amend the complaint, a decision upheld by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on November 18, 2025.
The case centers around allegations that Mallery, S.C., a law firm hired by Dronso in August 2018 to handle several breach of contract disputes worth over $700,000, failed in their duty by losing critical documents. Dronso claimed this negligence prevented her from successfully prosecuting her claims with subsequent legal representation. In January 2021, Mallery reportedly informed Dronso they no longer felt confident about her cases and had only four documents left from her file. Consequently, Dronso had to settle one claim for $10,000, received nothing for another, and paid $60,000 for the third.
Mallery moved to dismiss the case in July 2023 under WIS. STAT. § 802.06(2)(a)6., arguing that Dronso’s complaint lacked sufficient detail to establish proximate cause between the lost documents and her inability to pursue her claims effectively. The circuit court agreed with Mallery’s position during a hearing on January 30, 2024. The court found that Dronso’s complaint did not specify which documents were missing or how they would have helped her case.
In response to Mallery’s motion to dismiss, Dronso presented an email from her successor counsel outlining difficulties encountered due to the missing documents. However, this evidence was not part of the original complaint or incorporated into it at any point. The court emphasized that review of a motion to dismiss is generally confined to the contents within the complaint itself.
Dronso sought permission to amend her complaint orally during the hearing but was met with objections from Mallery due to procedural timing issues—specifically that she was beyond the six-month period allowed for amendments as a matter of course under WIS. STAT. § 802.09(1). The circuit court questioned why she hadn’t amended earlier and found negotiations between parties insufficient justification for delay.
On appeal, Dronso argued against both the dismissal and denial of amendment rights but faced an uphill battle as appellate courts defer significantly to lower courts’ discretion unless there’s clear abuse or error—a threshold unmet here according to judges White C.J., Colon P.J., and Donald J., who affirmed Judge Kashoua Kristy Yang’s decision without further publication under WIS STAT RULES regarding non-precedential opinions (809:23).
Representing Michelle Dronso was attorney unknown while Mallery S.C.’s defense team remains unspecified alongside other potentially involved law firms like Butcher & Ameritech Corp.; however exact names weren’t disclosed within available records nor were any financial compensation amounts mentioned beyond those settled outside courtroom settings ($10k/$60k respectively).
Source: 2024AP446_Dronso_v_Mallary_SC_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
