A Day Late

The Michigan Attorney Grievance Board has denied the Grievance Administrator’s objection to a reinstatement petition filed on August 5 and granted reinstatement

MCR 9.123(A) provides that, “[w]ithin 7 days after the filing of the affidavit, the administrator may file with the board and serve on the attorney an objection to reinstatement based on theattorney’s failure to demonstrate compliance with  the suspension order.” Eight days after respondent’s affidavit was filed, on August 13, 2024, the Grievance Administrator filed an objection to respondent’s reinstatement “because she has failed to comply with the order of discipline,” by filing the required motions to withdraw from her active cases eleven days late. Despite the untimeliness of the objection, and because the Administrator argues that the Board was otherwise apprised of a basis to conclude that respondent failed to comply with the suspension order, the Administrator insists that this matter must now be assigned to a hearing panel to determine whether respondent has complied with the suspension order.

Denied

We find that the Administrator’s objection is filed outside of the required time frame set forth in MCR 9.123(A).Furthermore, and regardless of the timeliness of the Administrator’s objection, the Board has not been apprised of a basis to conclude that respondent’s admitted tardiness in notifying the tribunals and parties of her suspension, is a basis to impede her reinstatement in this matter, nor are there any disputed facts to resolve. As a result, it is not necessary to assign this matter to a hearing panel to determine whether respondent is in compliance with the suspension order.

Admitted tardiness is excuable for the Respondent; a day late is fatal to the Administrator. (Mike Frisch)