WILLIAM L. KIRIAZIS represents design professionals including architects, engineers and land surveyors in all aspects of their work from contract preparation to problem solving to litigation. He also represents owners, contractors and vendors in construction related matters.
In addition to construction law, Bill also has expertise in aviation litigation. He has been involved in a number of major air crash lawsuits including Northwest Flight 255 and Comair Flight 3272. He has experience in handling mass tort claims, complex lawsuits and federal court multi-district litigation.
Bill has handled a wide range of cases for a diverse group of clients from individuals to large multi-national corporations. He has tried many cases in the Michigan courts and the United States District courts. He is also an active participant in Alternative Dispute Resolution and serves as a mediator and arbitrator. In addition to handling a full trial docket, Bill is currently a co-Managing Shareholder of the firm.
University of Michigan, B.A. 1977
Wayne State University School of Law, J.D. 1981
State Bar of Michigan 1981
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan 1981
United States District Court, Western District of Michigan 1992
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1993
“AV” rating from Martindale Hubbell Peer Review, the highest rating given
Super Lawyer, State of Michigan, Construction Litigation, every year from the inception of the program
Top Lawyer, dbusiness Magazine
Fritz v Millennia Housing Management, Ltd.
William Kiriazis received a summary disposition from Judge James Maceroni in a case pending in the Macomb County Circuit Court. Bill represented a landlord and management company who were sued by a resident after having been allegedly sexually assaulted by another resident in an elevator of the apartment building. In a written Opinion citing Bailey v Schaaf, 494 Mich 595 (2013), Judge Maceroni ruled that the defendant landlord and management company owed no duty to plaintiff to anticipate and prevent the criminal acts of a third party and that the defendants’ duty was limited to “reasonably expediting the involvement of the police.”