MEMBERS WILLIAM P. HAMPTON CHAIRPERSON LORI McALLISTER VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM L. MATTHEWS, CPA SECRETARY REV. IRA COMBS, JR. GEORGE H. LENNON BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D.
HON. RICHARD F. SUHRHEINRICH WILLIAM J. DANHOF ANDREA L. SOLAK
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. 06-120-GA Christopher J. Trainor, P 42449, White Lake, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #63.
1. Dismissal 2. Effective September 5, 2007 The formal complaint filed by the Grievance Administrator charged that respondent, in a divorce matter, attempted to settle a claim for legal malpractice with his client, an unrepresented client or former client, without first advising him in writing that independent representation is appropriate with regard to that claim; failed to make reasonable efforts, as a partner in a firm, to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach. The complaint further charged that respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(1 )-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(h)(2); 5.1 (a); and 8.4(a) and (c).
A two day hearing took place and, after petitioner's case in chief was presented, the respondent moved for involuntary dismissal pursuant to MCR 2.504(b)(2). The panel granted in part by dismissing the charges that respondent violated MCR 9.1 04(A)(1) and (3); and MRPC 5.1 (a); and 8.4(c). However, the panel did not dismiss the charges that respondent violated MRPC 1.8(h)(2) ; and 8.4(a). Further evidence and testimony was provided as to the remaining allegations.
Upon review of the evidence and testimony, the panel found that respondent knew that his client was represented by other counsel at the time he attempted to have his client sign the release. Therefore, the requirement that respondent advise his client in writing to seek independent representation was not necessary. The panel dismissed the remainder of the allegations in the formal complaint. No costs were assessed against respondent.
Dated:
SEP
52nO?
_