Default Affirmed
The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board granted interlocutory review of a hearing panel denial of a motion to vacate default but affirmed on the merits in a case charging misappropriation.
The board majority found that Respondent had failed to establish a meritorious defense to the allegations
The panel correctly notes that respondent’s personal difficulties, if established, may be relevant to determining the appropriate level of sanction to impose, but are not defenses to the actual charges of misconduct. Further, the calculation of a precise dollar amount that respondent may owe in restitution is also a question ordinarily addressed at a sanction hearing, not a defense to the charges contained in the formal complaint. As such, respondent has failed to set forth any meritorious defenses, and the panel did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to set aside the default.
Two board members dissented
The integrity of the process is best served by addressing the misconduct allegations on their merits. This allows the panel, the board, the court, and the public to be assured that the appropriate sanction is ultimately selected to protect the public and the profession. To proceed with the sanction phase without the benefit of a full accounting of respondent’s conduct when she is now fully engaged, having previously been in communication and actively negotiating with the Administrator’s Counsel, and willing to formally answer the complaint, would be at variance to the Board’s mandate of protecting the public’s confidence in the profession, which can only happen when the discipline process is open, complete, and fair. Justice demands that we reverse and set aside the panel’s decision preventing the adjudication of this matter on the merits prior to imposing a sanction potentially as severe as disbarment.
Lawyers play a pivot role in our civil society and work to preserve the rule of law. As such, when sanctions like disbarment are considered, whether ultimately appropriate or not, the public is owed the protection of a system of discipline that provides a full and fair hearing on the merits, whenever possible—and it is certainly possible here.
For these reasons, we must respectfully dissent.
The attorney also faced criminal charges as reported by the Alpena News
The Michigan State Police arrested Elowski in February following a raid at her Alpena law office, Legal Me.
At the time, a State Police spokesman said the Oscoda County case was “just at the tip of the iceberg” as police continued to investigate what police believed could be “well over $1 million” in embezzled funds.
The Michigan Supreme Court in April barred Elowski from practicing law in the state following a petition filed by the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, which investigates alleged wrongdoing by attorneys. At the time, Elowski told The News she’d already informed the Grievance Commission she planned to relinquish her law license “due to health issues.”
An update yesterday from the same source
Michelle Elowski, a former Alpena attorney accused of embezzling money from clients and other crimes, has had her trial slated for the end of the month canceled, according to the Oscoda County 23rd Circuit Court office.
The court told The News that Elowski will be sentenced on Feb. 18, which indicates she may have reached a plea deal with the prosecution.
(Mike Frisch)