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 6 lawyers and 3 public members (nonlawyers) appointed by the Supreme Court. A member may not serve more than 2 three-year terms. All members serve without compensation. The Board's chairperson and vice-chairperson are appointed by the Supreme Court. The Board's secretary is elected by its members.

Members of the Attorney Discipline Board in 1997 were: Elizabeth N. Baker, C. H. Dudley, Barbara B. Gattorn, Grant J. Gruel,⁽¹⁾ Albert L. Holtz, Miles A. Hurwitz,⁽²⁾ Michael R. Kramer, Kenneth L. Lewis, Roger E. Winkelman and Nancy A. Wonch.

On September 30, 1997, lawyer member Miles A. Hurwitz concluded his second term as a member of the Board. Mr. Hurwitz brought to the Board a wealth of knowledge in the field of professional responsibility as a former chairperson of the Standing Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the State Bar of Michigan. During his six years on the Board, Mr. Hurwitz served two terms as the Board's vice-chairperson (1993 to 1995) and was appointed by the Supreme Court to two consecutive terms as chairperson (1995 to 1997). Under his leadership, the Board adopted standards for hearing panelist training and instituted an annual series of training workshops around the state. As a member and officer of the Board, Mr. Hurwitz exemplified the highest standards of personal and professional integrity. He leaves with the respect and affection of the members and staff of the Attorney Discipline Board.

In September 1997, the Supreme Court appointed attorney Grant J. Gruel of Grand Rapids to a 3 year term commencing October 1, 1997.

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 Counsel; Margaret Lucas Agius, Legal Assistant; Susan C. Lindeman, Office Manager; Lynn L. Harkins, Secretary; Sherry L. Mifsud, Assignment Clerk and Susan D. Duncan, Assignment Clerk. The Board's offices and hearing room are at One Kennedy Square, 719 Griswold Street, Suite 1910, Detroit, MI 48226.

The Board maintains a current roster of over 450 attorneys appointed annually to serve on 3 member hearing panels. The 1997 hearing panelist roster is attached as Appendix "C". 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 1997, the Board's hearing panels conducted 317 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 certain 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).

Discipline orders 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 within 21 days, an order of discipline entered by a hearing panel constitutes a final order and may be enforced in civil contempt proceedings instituted 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.

During 1997, the Board held 11 regularly scheduled meetings in Detroit and heard oral arguments in 47 review cases (compared to 37 review case the previous year.) Of the 32 appeals involving orders imposing discipline, the Board affirmed the hearing panel decision in 16 cases (50%); increased discipline in 7 cases (22%); decreased discipline in 6 cases (19%); and remanded 3 cases to the hearing panel for further proceedings (9%). The Board heard 13 appeals from hearing panel orders of dismissal. In those cases, the Board affirmed the hearing panel dismissal in 9 cases. In 4 cases, the Board reversed the hearing panel's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

The Board considered 2 appeals in reinstatement cases. The Board affirmed 1 hearing panel order granting reinstatement and affirmed 1 panel order denying reinstatement.

In 1996, there were no motions for disclosure filed with the Board pursuant to MCR 9.126(D)(7) or MCR 9.126(E)(5).

There were 273 new formal complaints filed in 1997. Of these, 175 complaints⁽³⁾ contained original charges of misconduct based upon an investigation conducted by the Attorney Grievance Commission. The remaining 98 formal complaints⁽⁴⁾ were based solely upon the failure of the respondent/attorney 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 175 GA formal complaints filed in 1997 represent a 2% decrease from the 179 such complaints filed in 1996.

Fifteen new files were opened upon the filing of petitions for reinstatement in accordance with MCR 9.123(B). An additional 11 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. Five matters were 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.

The 318 new files opened by the Board in 1997 represent an 8.5% increase when compared with the 293 new cases in 1996. The following table (Table 1) illustrates the Board's annual intake of new cases during the past 6 years.

There were 205 final disposition orders issued in 1997, including orders of discipline, dismissal, transferring an attorney to inactive status and granting or denying reinstatement. Because some of these orders involved two or more consolidated complaints, the 205 final disposition orders accounted for the closure of 319 docketed complaints, including supplemental complaints for failure to answer. Orders of discipline (probation, reprimand, suspension and revocation) were issued in 162 cases. A complete list of the orders of discipline issued in 1997 appears in Appendix "B". Orders of discipline issued since 1992 are illustrated in Table 2, below.

A lawyer may receive more than one discipline order in a given year. In 1997, 135 lawyers accumulated 162 orders of discipline ranging from probation to disbarment. While there was a slight decrease in the number of discipline orders issued compared to the previous year, the number of lawyers subject to discipline increased from 120 to 135.

In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that the Board retains jurisdiction to consider misconduct during the period of licensure by attorneys whose licenses were later revoked.⁽⁵⁾ Of the 21 lawyers whose licenses were revoked in 1997, 6 were the subject of 2 revocation orders during the calendar year. The 21 lawyers whose licenses were revoked in 1997 accounted for 32 orders of discipline, or 20% of the final orders of discipline during that year.

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. Thirty-five consent orders were approved in 1997, accounting for 22% of the discipline orders issued.

As in prior years, neglect of client matters was the single largest category of professional misconduct resulting in discipline, accounting for 46% 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. Conduct characterized primarily as neglect accounted for 49% of the reprimand orders, 46% of the suspension orders and 40% of the disbarment orders.

For statistical purposes, cases involving neglect of client matters coupled with an attorney's false statement to the client or to the Grievance Administrator were recorded in a separate category. Those cases accounted for an additional 14% of all discipline orders issued in 1997. Neglect coupled with misrepresentation accounted for 22% of the disbarment orders.

The next largest category of misconduct, misuse of client funds ranging from inadvertent commingling to outright embezzlement, accounted for 12% of all discipline orders. Of the 19 discipline orders involving commingling or misappropriation of client funds, 8 cases resulted in disbarment, 4 resulted in suspensions of 3 years or more and 4 resulted in suspensions greater than 6 months.

Other types of misconduct resulting in discipline in 1997 were criminal convictions (6 felony, 5 misdemeanor)--7%; violations of a prior discipline order--4% and failure to cooperate in a discipline investigation--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 and a hearing before a panel to determine his or her fitness to re-enter the practice of law. Attorneys suspended for 3 years or more must undergo examination and recertification by the Michigan Board of Law Examiners. In Michigan, a disbarred attorney may petition for reinstatement after 5 years. Fifteen reinstatement petitions were filed with the Board and assigned to panels for hearing in 1997. The Board or its panels issued 8 orders reinstating attorneys whose licenses had been suspended for terms greater than 6 months. Reinstatement was granted to two attorneys whose licenses had been revoked.⁽⁶⁾ Reinstatement petitions were denied or dismissed in 4 cases.

As of December 31, 1997, there were a total of 202 open discipline or reinstatement cases pending before a hearing panel, the Attorney Discipline Board or the Michigan Supreme Court, as follows:
 

	Pending 12/31/97	Pending 12/31/96
Supreme Court:	10	17
Attorney Discipline Board:	28	33
Hearing Panels:	164	163
	202	213

In 1994, the Board embarked on a program to provide continuing education to its appointed hearing panelists. This program was continued in 1997 with workshops in Detroit, and Grand Rapids. A videotape of the workshop conducted in Detroit in September 1997 is available for review by panelists.

The Attorney Discipline Board receives no public funds. Michigan's attorney discipline system is funded entirely by the State Bar of Michigan which derives its income primarily from the dues assessed against its members. Under the current dues structure approved by the Supreme Court, Michigan lawyers pay mandatory annual dues of $260, of which $100 (38%) is specifically allocated for attorney discipline.

For the fiscal year which ended September 30, 1997, the Board's total expenses were $705,539.* The Board's receipts from reimbursed transcript costs, copying charges and the sale of used equipment amounted to $72,219, leaving net expenses of $633,320. This figure represented an increase of 1.8% compared to the previous fiscal year.

Any questions regarding the operation of the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board may be addressed to the Board's chairperson or the Board's executive director at:

John F. Van Bolt, Executive Director

Albert L. Holtz, Chairperson

*Unaudited year-end figures supplied by the State Bar of Michigan.
 

I. CASES FILED

A. Formal Complaints (total) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

1. New Formal Complaints (GA). . . . . . 175

2. Failure-to-Answer Complaints (FA) . . 98

B. Judgments of Conviction [MCR 9.120] (JC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

C. Petitions for Reciprocal Discipline (RD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

D. Petitions for Transfer to Inactive Status (PI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

E. Reinstatement Petitions (RP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

F. Miscellaneous (MZ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

G. Automatic Interim Suspensions (AI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

H. TOTAL CASES FILED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

II. FINAL DISPOSITIONS

A. Final Orders of Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

1. Revocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2. Suspensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

a. Subject to MCR 9.123(A). . . 31

b. Subject to MCR 9.123(B). . . 45

c. Subject to MCR 9.123(C). . . 14

3. Reprimands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4. Probations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *2

B. Transfers to Inactive Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

C. Dismissals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

D. Reinstatements Granted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

E. Reinstatements Denied/Dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

F. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

G. TOTAL FINAL DISPOSITION ORDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205

H. Total Cases Closed (Including all consolidated cases.) . . . . . . 319

III. OTHER NOTICES ISSUED

A. Automatic Interim Suspensions Under MCR 9.120 . . . . . . . . . . . 11

B. Automatic Reinstatements Under MCR 9.123(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

C. Notices of Discipline Pending Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

D. Reinstatements (File Pending) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

E. Reinstatements (File Closed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

F. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

G. TOTAL OTHER NOTICES ISSUED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

IV. HEARINGS

A. Scheduled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654

B. Held . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

V. COSTS

Total Costs Reimbursed to the State Bar of Michigan
by Respondents and Petitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$75,470.91

*2 Probation orders combined with other discipline and counted in both categories.
 

SUSPENSIONS - MCR 9.123(C) 14

SUSPENSIONS - MCR 9.123(B) 45

SUSPENSIONS - MCR 9.123(A) 31

REPRIMANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

PROBATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2#

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162

#2 combined with other discipline and counted in both categories.
 

^*Deceased.
^#Retired or resigned as panelist.
^@Appointed to Attorney Discipline Board March 29, 1996.
^&All full-time judges removed as hearing panelists August 1997.
^%Inactive panelist.
^~Appointed to Attorney Discipline Board October 1, 1997. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Appointed by Supreme Court effective October 1, 1997. 

2. Second three-year term expired September 30, 1997. 

3. ^{Designated "GA" in Appendix "A."} 

4. ^{Designated "FA" in Appendix "A."} 

5. Grievance Administrator v Attorney Discipline Board, 447 Mich 411 (1994). 

6. In the Matter of the Reinstatement of Evan H. Callanan, Lv den 455 Mich 1215 (1997); Kelly v Board of Law Examiners, 454 Mich 1206 (1997).