56 Minutes Late

The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board vacated the default entered by a tri-county hearing panel and directed a hearing on the merits of the complaint

The amended answer respondent filed on February 20, 2023, albeit untimely filed by 56 minutes, is in substantial compliance with the court rules. Contrary to the Grievance Administrator’s assertion, the hearing panel never told respondent she could not alter the amended answer that she had prepared for filing. Respondent readily admitted that she changed the date and the answer to paragraph 47 of the formal complaint, in order to make the amended answer more accurate as of the date it was filed, February 20, 2023. Furthermore, the amended answer provides enough information to give the Administrator sufficient notice of respondent’s defense to allow him to adequately prepare his case, and there is no evidence respondent acted in bad faith. A fair and just examination on the merits is the goal of disciplinary proceedings. Given that respondent has had a nearly 20 year career with no prior discipline, and in light of the seriousness of the allegations made by the Grievance Administrator, the most prudent course of action is to decide this matter on the merits.

Reason for lateness

Respondent explained that she had technical difficulties while attempting to file the amended answer, which is why it was untimely. Respondent also explained that she changed the date of the amended answer “to better identify the actual date of submission and to prevent any confusion among the various filings she submitted . . . .” Respondent also admitted that she modified her answer to paragraph 47 of the formal complaint, to properly reflect the facts as of the date it was filed.

(Mike Frisch)