MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF
CHAIRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICE·CHAIRPERSON . WILLIAM L. MATTHEWS, CPA
SECRETARY BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D. ANDREA L. SOlAK ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. CARL E. VER BEEK
CRAIG H. LUBBEN
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARK A. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
JENNIFER M. PETTY LEGAL ASSISTANT
211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571
WWW.ADBMICH.ORG
DISMISSAL Case No. 08-84-GA James K. Champion, P 59188, Portage, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kalamazoo County' Hearing Panel #1.
1. Dismissal 2. Effective December 9,2008 In this matter, respondent was charged with failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; representing a client where the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client; violation the Rules of. Professional Conduct; and engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(1) and (4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(b); 1.7(b); and 8.4(a) and (c).
During the hearing, the Grievance Administrator withdrew a majority of the allegations, leaving the allegation that respondent represented a client where the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b).
The panel found that while respondent's representation of the daughter of his partner's client might be materially limited, the charges against the father at the initial point of representation were separate and distinct, involving Federal criminal charges, while the daughter's representation only involved her relationship with Child Protective Services and the Family Courts and threats through the Portage Police investigator. The panel also found that respondent had discussed the potential conflict with his client and that she did not have separate interests from her father, as she was claiming he was innocent. Finally, the panel concluded that while respondent could and probably should have gone further in explaining the risks and dangers of this representation, the panel concluded that respondent's conduct was not a violation such as to subject him to formal disci'pline.
No costs were assessed against respondent.
92008