An order increasing sanction from the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board

After proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct by his conduct in reaction to the dismissal of his JAG officer application, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.1 04(4); engaging in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4( c) and MCR 9.1 04(1); engaging in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaging in conduct that was contrary to justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).

Respondent filed a timely petition for review seeking reversal of the hearing panel’s findings of misconduct and dismissal of the formal complaint. The Grievance Administrator filed a cross-petition for review arguing for an increase in the discipline and modification of the condition imposed by the panel. The Attorney Discipline Board conducted review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, which included a review of the whole record before the panel, consideration of the parties’ briefs and the arguments presented at a review hearing conducted on August 16, 2017. On September 19,2017, an order increasing discipline from a reprimand with condition to a 180­ day suspension and vacating condition was issued by the Board.

On October 17, 2017, respondent filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, and, on October 18, 2017, respondent filed a motion for stay of the Board’s order and a motion for immediate consideration, which are pending before the Court.

A second matter involves the same attorney

Dismissal – Effective September 16, 2017

The Grievance Administrator’s formal complaint alleged that respondent committed professional misconduct in connection with incidents that occurred on December 23,2014. The complaint alleged that respondent harassed and intimidated his opposing counsel following a hearing when he confronted his opposing counsel, blocked her exit from a conference room and physically bumped her when she tried to leave. The complaint specifically alleged that respondent’s conduct violated MRPC 6.5(a), 8.4(a)-(c), and MCR 9.104(1)-(4). Respondent disputed that he did anything wrong in this matter.

The hearing panel found that petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent violated the rules of professional conduct cited in the formal complaint. No costs were assessed against respondent.