MEMBERS LORI McALLISTER CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM J. DANHOF VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM l. MATTHEWS, CPA
SECRETARY GEORGE H. LENNON BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D. HON. RICHARD F. SUHRHEINRICH ANDREA l. SOLAK
THOMAS G. KIENBAUM EILEEN LAPPIN WEISER
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
W'NW.ADBMICH.ORG
DISMISSAL
Case No. 03-172-GA (Weideman, III) and Case No. 03-173-GA (Weideman, Jr.)
Carl M. Weideman, III, P 47032, Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan, and Carl M. Weideman, Jr., P 22096, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #1.
1. Dismissal 2. Effective D.ecember 27,2007 These matters were consolidated for hearing and the formal complaints alleged that respondents had committed professional misconduct in their representation of a client in a civil action when they attempted to impose additional contingencies, in violation of a November 3, 1999 settlement order, before payment of the ordered settlement amount; intentionally violated the trial court's November 3, 1999 order by attempting to interplead the funds into the court instead of transferring the funds to the defendant; returned the settlement funds to their client and advised her not to follow through with the ordered settlement, but instead advised her to file for bankruptcy in order to frustrate the tria.! court's order of November 9, 1999; and advised their client not to comply with the November 3, 1999 settlement order. The complaint also alleged that respondents' actions were undertaken in order to harass the defendant; to cause unnecessary delay; to needlessly increase the costs of litigation; and to frustrate the trial court's November 3, 1999 order. Respondents' conduct was alleged to be in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(1 )-(4); MCR 2.114(0)(3); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(c); 3.2; 3.4(c); and 8.4(a) and (c).
After four hearings, during which numerous exhibits and testimony were presented, the hearing panel dismissed the allegations of misconduct contained in paragraphs 25(b)-(e) and part of (f) of the formal complaints. A fifth hearing was held regarding the remaining allegations of misconduct contained in paragraph 25(a) and 25(f). With respect to paragraph 25(a), the panel found that the inventory not dissipated outside the ordinary course of business and equipment in good working order were the essence of the transaction and were not "additional" as alleged in that paragraph. Finally, with respect to the remainder of paragraph 25(f), the panel found that the respondents' appeal of a lower court order was an open challenge to the order based on an assertion that no basis for sanctions existed and was not misconduct.
Accordingly, the panel issued an order dismissing Formal Complaints 03-172-GA and 03-173-GA.
Dated:ยทยท DEC!7 2007