MEMBERS WILLIAM P. HAMPTON CHAIRPERSON LORI McALLISTER VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM L. MATIHEWS, 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 EXECUT/~ DIREaOR
JENNIFE LEGAL
211 WES SUIT DETROIT, MICHl
M. PETTY SISTA1'JT
FORT ST. 1410 AN 48226-3236
PHONE: 3 3-963-5553 FAX: 313963-5571
WWW.AD MICH.ORG
DISMISSAL
Case No. 06-110-GA Monika U. Holzer Sacks, P 29987, Ann Arbor, Michigan, by the Attorney Disciplin Tri-County Hearing Panel #19.
Board
1. Dismissal 2. Effective April 14, 2007 The formal complaint filed by the Grievance Administrator charged that during th of a mediation conference in a divorce case, and while the opposing party and opposing ounsel were absent from the room, respondent took possession ofand started reviewing personal f nancial and banking documents left on the conference table by the opposing party. The complaint harged that respondent thereby used methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights 0 a third person in violation of MRPC 4.4, and further violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (c) and MCR 9.10 (A)(1), (2), (3) and (4).
At the hearing, respondent was the only witness called to testify. Based upon resp ndent's unrebutted testimony, the panel found that the documents in question were in fact bank do uments pertaining to a mortgage refinancing application; that earlier in the mediation the documents had been reviewed by respondent and her client; and that the documents had been placed on t e table in what respondent described as a "communal pile" to be copied and distributed to both p rties at the conclusion of the mediation. At the close of the Grievance Administrator's proofs, th panel granted respondent's motion for dismissal, finding that by looking at documents which h d been executed by her client, which she had already seen and which she would soon receive c pies of, respondent did not prejudice or harm any participant at the mediation, nor did it give res ondent a tactical advantage. No costs were assessed against respondent.
John F. Van Bolt
Dated:
_