Attorney Discipline Board Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Attorney Discipline Board Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Tables

Table 1 New Cases Filed 1994 - 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2 Discipline Orders Issued 1994 - 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 3 ADB Expenses, Fiscal Year 2000-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Appendices

Appendix A: Annual Activity Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Appendix B: List of Disciplined Attorneys,
by Type of Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Appendix C: ADB Expenditures, October 1, 2000 - September 30, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Appendix D: 2001 Hearing Panelist Roster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

The Attorney Discipline Board is the adjudicative arm of the Michigan Supreme Court for the discharge of the Court's exclusive constitutional responsibility to supervise and discipline Michigan attorneys. The Board, along with its prosecutorial counterpart, the Attorney Grievance Commission, is part of the bifurcated system of discipline described in Chapter 9.100 of the Michigan Court Rules.

The Attorney Discipline Board consists of six lawyers and three public members (non-lawyers) appointed by the Supreme Court. A member may not serve more than two three-year terms. All members serve without compensation. The Board's chairperson and vice-chairperson are appointed to one year terms by the Supreme Court. The Board's secretary is elected by its members. The Board's officers for one year terms ending September 30, 2002 are Wallace D. Riley of Detroit, Chairperson; Theodore J. St. Antoine of Ann Arbor, Vice-Chairperson; and Nancy A. Wonch of Lansing, Secretary. Since the Board's last annual report, the Supreme Court has appointed three new members. Attorney member Michael R. Kramer of Bloomfield Hills completed his second three-year term on September 30, 2001. He is succeeded by William P. Hampton of Bloomfield Hills. The Court also accepted the resignations of lay member Diether Haenicke of Kalamazoo and attorney member Grant Gruel of Grand Rapids. To fill those vacancies, the Court appointed Rev. Ira J. Combs, Jr., of Jackson and George H. Lennon of Kalamazoo.

The courts, the public and the legal profession in Michigan are deeply indebted to Mr. Kramer, Dr. Haenicke and Mr. Gruel for their dedicated service as members of the Board. They leave with the lasting respect and affection of the Board's members and staff.

Michigan Court Rule 9.110 authorizes the Attorney Discipline Board to appoint an attorney as its counsel. The Board's full-time staff consists of: John F. Van Bolt, Executive Director and General Counsel; Mark A. Armitage, Associate Director; Rita Elizabeth Foley, Associate Counsel; Jennifer M. Petty, Legal Assistant; Sherry Mifsud, Office Administrator; Kathy Leal-Paredes, Case Manager; and Allyson M. Plourde, Case Manager.

At the commencement of the year, the Attorney Discipline Board was one of the few remaining tenants at 719 Griswold Street in Detroit (previously known as One Kennedy Square and now named the Dime Building) while that building was undergoing complete renovation. In October 2001, the Board moved to 1001 Woodward Avenue to take temporary occupancy of space previously leased by the Detroit office of the Michigan Court of Appeals. This temporary occupancy was ended March 30, 2002 when the Board relocated to permanent offices at 211 W. Fort St., Suite 1410, Detroit. The Board's facilities include hearing and conference rooms for the public hearings conducted by the Attorney Discipline Board and hearing panels in the Metropolitan Detroit area.

The Board maintains a current roster of over 450 attorneys appointed annually to serve on three member hearing panels. The 2001 hearing panelist roster is attached as Appendix "D." The Board has continued its efforts to appoint attorneys as panel members who represent a broad range of professional experience. With the cooperation of the Women Lawyers Association and the Wolverine Bar Association, and other special interest bar associations, the Board actively encourages the participation of women and minorities in Michigan's discipline system.

Upon the filing of a formal complaint, judgment of conviction or petition for reinstatement, the matter is assigned to a hearing panel. Proceedings before a panel are open to the public and are conducted under the Michigan Court Rules applicable to a civil trial in a circuit court and the Michigan Rules of Evidence. During 2001, the Board's hearing panels conducted 139 public hearings.

Complaints submitted by clients, judges or other lawyers regarding an attorney's conduct are investigated by the Grievance Administrator and his or her staff under the supervision of the Attorney Grievance Commission, a separate agency. If formal disciplinary proceedings are authorized by the Commission, the charges of misconduct are set forth in a formal complaint filed by the Administrator. The charges in the complaint must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. If the charges of misconduct are not established, the panel must enter an order of dismissal. Upon a finding of misconduct, the panel must conduct a separate phase of the hearing to determine the appropriate discipline. The levels of discipline provided in the court rules are reprimand, probation, license suspension and license revocation (disbarment). In a discipline matter decided July 15, 1997, the Supreme Court held that under rare circumstances a finding of professional misconduct may result in an order of discipline which effectively imposes no discipline on the attorney. Grievance Administrator v Deutch, 455 Mich 149, 163 (1997). Final orders of discipline finding misconduct but imposing no discipline were entered in four cases in 2001.

Discipline orders must include an assessment of costs incurred by the Grievance Commission and Discipline Board, and may include an order of restitution to an aggrieved client. Orders of reprimand or suspension may include additional conditions relevant to the established misconduct, including legal education, reformation of law office practices and personal counseling.

Unless appealed to the Board within 21 days by the respondent, the Grievance Administrator or the complainant, an order of discipline entered by a hearing panel constitutes a final order and may be enforced in civil contempt proceedings by the Grievance Administrator.

The respondent, the Grievance Administrator or the complainant may petition the Attorney Discipline Board for a review of an order entered by a hearing panel. The Board's review in such cases is based upon the record presented to the hearing panel and the written and oral arguments presented by the parties on appeal. Following its review, the Board may enter an order affirming, reversing or modifying the panel's order. In addition, the Board regularly considers and disposes of various motions seeking stays of discipline, extensions of time to pay costs, consolidation or severance of pending matters and the institution of show cause proceedings for alleged violations of discipline orders. The respondent, the Grievance Administrator, or the complainant may seek review of the Board's order by filing an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court.

During the year 2001, the Board held seven regularly scheduled meetings in Detroit and heard oral arguments in 17 review cases.

There were no motions for disclosure filed with the Board pursuant to MCR 9.126(D)(7) or MCR 9.126(E)(5) during 2001.

There were 132 new formal complaints filed in 2001. Of these, 106 complaints ⁽¹⁾ contained original charges of misconduct following an investigation by the Attorney Grievance Commission. The remaining 26 formal complaints ⁽²⁾ were based solely upon the respondent/attorney's failure to answer the initial formal complaint, a separate violation under MCR 9.104(7). Such complaints are consolidated for hearing before the panel to which the original complaint has been assigned. The 106 GA formal complaints filed in 2001 represented a decrease of 21% compared to 134 such complaints filed in 2000.

Fifteen new cases were commenced under MCR 9.120 with the filing of a judgment of conviction establishing that an attorney had been convicted of a crime. One new matter was commenced with the filing of a petition seeking reciprocal discipline in accordance with MCR 9.104 as the result of a discipline order issued in another jurisdiction. Nine new files were opened upon the filing of petitions for reinstatement in accordance with MCR 9.123(B).

The 175 new files opened by the Board in 2001 represent a 16% decrease when compared with the 209 new cases in 2000. The following table (Table 1) illustrates the Board's annual intake of new cases since 1994.

There were 158 final disposition orders issued in 2001, including orders of discipline, orders of dismissal and orders granting or denying reinstatement. Because some of these orders involved two or more consolidated complaints, the 158 final disposition orders accounted for the closure of 187 docketed matters, including supplemental complaints for failure to answer. Orders of discipline (revocation, suspension, reprimand, probation and orders finding misconduct but imposing no discipline) were issued in 123 cases. A complete list of the orders of discipline issued in 2001 appears in Appendix "B." Orders of discipline issued since 1994 are illustrated in Table 2, below.

A lawyer may receive more than one discipline order in a given year. In 2001, 111 lawyers accumulated 123 orders of discipline. Compared to the previous year, the number of lawyers subject to discipline decreased slightly from 113 to 111.

The respondent and the Grievance Administrator may enter into a stipulation for a consent order of discipline after a formal complaint has been filed. This procedure, described in MCR 9.115(F)(5), allows the respondent to admit the charges in the complaint, or plead no contest, in exchange for a stated form of discipline. The stipulation must be approved by both the Attorney Grievance Commission and a hearing panel. Fifty-nine consent orders were approved in 2001, accounting for 48% of the discipline orders issued. (Disciplines by consent accounted for 46% of the discipline orders issued in 2000 and 30% in 1999.)

Stipulations for consent discipline were approved in the following categories:

As in prior years, neglect of client matters was the single largest category of professional misconduct resulting in discipline, accounting for 42% of the discipline orders issued. Such neglect ranged from failure to provide competent or diligent representation on behalf of a single client to, in some cases, complete abandonment of an attorney's practice.

The next largest category of misconduct, accounting for 15% of all discipline orders, resulted from an attorney's mishandling of funds entrusted by a client or third party. The discipline imposed in these cases ranged from reprimand in four cases involving failure to maintain an IOLTA account or isolated instances of commingling client funds with the attorney's own funds to disbarment in four cases involving the intentional misappropriation of client funds.

Criminal convictions accounted for 14 (11%) of the discipline orders in 2001. Other types of misconduct resulting in discipline in 2001 included violations of discipline orders (7%), failure to answer and/or cooperate with a disciplinary investigation (7%) and conflicts of interest (4%).

Attorneys suspended for 179 days or less are automatically reinstated upon the filing of an affidavit of compliance with the Supreme Court. In cases of revocation or suspensions of 180 days or more, the attorney must file a petition for reinstatement which is followed by an investigation by the Grievance Administrator and a hearing before a panel to determine his or her fitness to re-enter the practice of law. Attorneys suspended for three years or more must also undergo examination and recertification by the State Board of Law Examiners. In Michigan, a disbarred attorney may petition for reinstatement after five years.

Nine reinstatement petitions were filed with the Board and assigned to panels for hearing in 2001. The Board or its panels issued five orders reinstating attorneys whose licenses had been suspended for terms greater than six months. Four reinstatement petitions were denied.

As of December 31, 2001, there were a total of 112 open discipline or reinstatement cases pending before a hearing panel, the Attorney Discipline Board or the Michigan Supreme Court, as follows:

The Attorney Discipline Board receives no public funds. Michigan's Attorney Discipline System (Attorney Discipline Board and Attorney Grievance Commission) is funded entirely from the dues assessed against active members of the State Bar of Michigan under the age of 70. Under the current dues structure approved by the Supreme Court, mandatory annual dues are $260, of which $100 (38%) is specifically allocated to the Attorney Discipline System Fund. For the fiscal year which ended September 30, 2001, the Attorney Discipline System had total operating revenue of $3,241,378 and total operating expenses of $3,485,457.

During the fiscal year 2000-2001, the Board's operating expenses were $757,976 (22% of the combined expenses of the Discipline Board and Grievance Commission). The Board's receipts from reimbursed transcript costs and copying charges amounted to $32,240, leaving net expenses of $725,736. A chart summarizing the Board's expenses for 2000-2001 is included below (Table 3). A complete itemization of the Board's approved budget and actual expenses is attached to this report as Appendix C.

The Attorney Discipline Board continues to expand and update its website: www.admich.org. The site includes: recent Board opinions and notices of discipline; access to the discipline history of all attorneys disciplined in Michigan since October 1, 1978; a searchable data base including the full text of all opinions of the Attorney Discipline Board since October 1, 1978; and links to related sites in the fields of attorney discipline, regulation and ethics.

For further information regarding the operation of the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, please contact:

• CASES FILED

• Formal Complaints (total) . . . . 132
• New Formal Complaints (GA). . . . 106
• Failure-to-Answer Complaints (FA). . . . 26
• Automatic Interim Suspensions (AI). . . . 10
• Judgment of Conviction (JC). . . . 15
• Petitions for Reciprocal Discipline (RD). . . . 1
• Petitions for Transfer to Inactive Status (PI). . . . 1
• Petitions for Reinstatement (RP). . . . 9
• Miscellaneous (MZ). . . . 7
• TOTAL CASES FILED . . . . 175

• FINAL DISPOSITIONS

• Final Orders of Discipline . . . . 123
• Revocations . . . . 11
• Suspensions . . . . 62
• Subject to MCR 9.123(A). . . . 21
• Subject to MCR 9.123(B). . . . 28
• Subject to MCR 9.123(B)& (C). . . . 13

• Reprimands . . . . 46
• Misconduct But No Discipline . . . . 4
• Probations . . . . 0
• Transfers to Inactive Status . . . . 0
• Dismissals . . . . 23
• Reinstatements Granted . . . . 5
• Reinstatements Denied/Dismissed . . . . 4
• Other . . . . 3
• TOTAL FINAL DISPOSITION ORDERS . . . .158
• Total Cases Closed (Including All Consolidated Cases). . . . 187

• OTHER NOTICES ISSUED

• Automatic Interim Suspensions Under MCR 9.120 . . . . 10
• Interim Suspensions Ordered By Hearing Panel . . . . 1
• Automatic Reinstatements Under MCR 9.123(A) . . . . 11

• TOTAL OTHER NOTICE ISSUED . . . . 22

• HEARINGS

• Scheduled . . . . 344
• Held . . . . 139

• COSTS

Total Costs Reimbursed to the State Bar of Michigan . . . . $65,608.57
by Respondents and Petitioners