Michigan Charges May Proceed

The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has ordered that charges against election denying attorneys go forward

The Grievance Administrator filed a one-count formal complaint againstrespondents on May 1, 2023, for alleged misconduct stemming from a cause of action filed in federal court by respondents on behalf of three Michigan voters and three republican nominees to the electoral college in Michigan. The complaint and amended complaint sought to overturn the results of Michigan’s 2020 presidential election. See King, et al v Whitmer, et al, USDC ED Mich, Case No 2:20-cv-13134. Ultimately the case against all defendants was voluntarily dismissed, and respondents were ordered to pay attorneys’ fees in the amount of $175,250.37.

As a result of respondents’ actions in federal court, this disciplinary action was filed, alleging the following violations: bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, where the basis for doing so is frivolous, in violation of MRPC 3.1; engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaging in conduct that exposes the legal profession orthe courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaging in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).

In lieu of filing an answer, respondents filed either a motion for summary disposition or a motion for partial summary disposition, as more fully detailed below. The Administrator filed a response to the motions, requesting that the panel deny respondents’ motions for summary disposition, and schedule this matter for hearing. Respondents filed replies in support of their motions. On December 1, 2023, the hearing panel entered an order denying respondents’ motions for summary disposition and partial summary disposition. Respondents filed motions for reconsideration, which were also denied by the panel in an order dated January 29, 2024.

The proceedings had been stayed while this appeal was under consideration.

Disposition of appeal

IT IS ORDERED that respondents’ request for interlocutory review of the hearing panel’s Order Denying Motion for Summary Disposition is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing panel’s December 1, 2023 Opinion and Order denying respondents’ motions for summary disposition and partial summary disposition is AFFIRMED in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay of proceedings entered on February 14, 2024 is hereby DISSOLVED and this matter is REMANDED to Tri-County Hearing Panel #20 for further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing on the charges in the formal complaint, to be scheduled forthwith.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each respondent shall file and serve an answer to their respective formal complaint within 21 days from the date of this order.

(Mike Frisch)