The Scorched Earth
The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has affirmed a disbarment order.
After he secured a judgment for a client, the defendant declared bankruptcy
On May 20,2009, a hearing was held in the bankruptcy matter on respondent’s motions. Bankruptcy Court Judge Keith Lundin found that the evidence was overwhelming that the Manganos’ bankruptcy filing was legitimate, not fraudulent. The judge described respondent’s conduct as a “scorched earth collection action by [respondent] on behalf of Mr. Chaban.” The judge also described respondent’s claim that the Manganos’ were engaged in fraud as “disingenuous at best, and frivolous at worst.” The judge further found that respondent’s motion for sanctions, which he subsequently withdrew, was not based on any reasonable investigation and that it was inappropriate for respondent to sign the motion. Finally, the judge ordered respondent to personally pay the reasonable expenses and attorney fees ofthe opposing parties for filing his frivolous motion to dismiss the bankruptcy petition. (Petitioner’s Exhibits 13, 14.) Respondent appealed the bankruptcy court’s rulings to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Nevertheless he persisted which led to
On January 4,2012, the U.S. District Court issued a second opinion and order that granted Chase[Financial]’s motion for summary judgment and imposed sanctions against respondent pursuant to 28 usc § 1927, noting that respondent’s actions were “egregious and warrant the imposition of sanctions.” The court further found that respondent “knowingly pursued meritless claims, intentionally abused the judicial process, and needlessly multiplied the proceedings in this action,” and that respondent “engaged in overly aggressive tactics – aimed at harassing Chase into settling with Saffady – that unquestionably caused Chase to incur unnecessary legal fees.” (Petitioner’s Exhibit 35.) The court ultimately declined to impose sanctions on respondent because Chase withdrew its request that the court do so, citing confidentiality concerns and a reluctance to engage in further litigation with respondent.
In the bar case
As mentioned earlier, when respondent filed his answer to the formal complaint, he included a counter-complaint naming the former Grievance Administrator, Robert Agacinski, and the Administrator’s Counsel, Ms. Uhuru, as “counter-respondents.” Respondent argues that the hearing panel erred as a matter of law by dismissing his counter-complaint prior to the first misconduct hearing, and in denying his attempt to call the Administrator’s counsel as an adverse witness at the January 10,2017 misconduct hearing.
Bottom line
we conclude that no error or abuse of discretion occurred in regard to the pre-hearing and evidentiary rulings made by the hearing panel. Likewise, the hearing panel’s findings of misconduct have proper evidentiary support in the record, and the panel’s application of the ABA Standards and rationale for the discipline imposed is similarly supported. Accordingly, the hearing panel’s order of disbarment is affirmed.
(Mike Frisch)