Reinstatement Denied In Michigan
The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board affirmed a panel order denying a petition for reinstatement.
The misconduct
Petitioner, in his capacity as the trustee ofthe Robert Schultz Trust, took personal loans in the total amount ofapproximately $95,000 from the trust without disclosing the terms ofthe loans in writing to Mr. Schultz, or obtaining Mr. Schultz’s consent to the loans in writing. Additionally, the loan arrangement between petitioner and the trust did not provide for a rate or schedule for the return ofthe personal loans taken by petitioner. Petitioner pled no contest to the charges contained in the amended formal complaint in Case No. 12-45-GA, specifically, that he committed professional misconduct when he entered into a business transaction with a client in which the transaction and terms were not fair and reasonable to the client and were not fully disclosed and transmitted to the client in a manner that can reasonably be understood by the client, in violation of MRPC 1.8( a)(l); entered into a transaction with a client in which the client does not consent to the transaction and its terms in writing, in violation of MRPC 1.8(a)(3); and, violated the Rules ofProfessional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c).
Petitioner’s license to practice law was suspended by consent for 180 days, effective December 18, 2012. The Order of Suspension and Restitution with Condition (By Consent) issued by the panel required petitioner to pay restitution of$101,871.09 to Robert M. Schultz and included a condition that petitioner would not be eligible to petition for reinstatement until he made full restitution to Mr. Schultz.
A hearing on the petition was conducted
At the hearing, the Grievance Administrator took the position that petitioner had “a systemic ongoing inability to accept responsibility,” and that there were “some very significant and serious red flags” which the panel should consider. (Tr 7/22/15, pp 126, 128.) Petitioner’s counsel argued that petitioner had been candid and forthright with the panel and that ”with the exception ofthat one blemish … he’s led a good honorable life.” (Tr 7/22/15, p 125.)
The panel noted a discrepancy between the petitioner’s characterization of the misconduct and the facts recited in the suspension order.
Petitioner’s characterization of his misconduct was not the only issue causing concern about his eligibility for reinstatement, however. The Grievance Administrator’s investigative report, and supplemental investigative report, both flagged issues regarding petitioner’s finances, personal bankruptcy, his “gift” of approximately $30,000 from the sale of his mother-in-law’s home, and his child support arrearage. The hearing panel’s report noted that petitioner conceded that pleadings filed on his behalf contained “significant inaccuracies,” and that, beyond testifying that he brought those inaccuracies to his attorney’s attention, he failed to produce any evidence of his attempts to have corrective action taken. More important, however, is the hearing panel’s assessment of petitioner’s credibility..
Finally, while it may not have been articulated as an enumerated factor in the panel’s ultimate determination to deny reinstatement, we find it worth mentioning that, in our view, exemplary conduct could include evidence that petitioner’s improved financial circumstances prompted him to voluntarily increase the amount ofhis monthly payments to the CPF.
(Mike Frisch)