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
WWW.ADBMICH.ORG
DISMISSAL Case No. 06-02-GA Timothy S. Barkovic, P 29797, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri- County Hearing Panel #102.
1. Dismissal 2. Effective September 5, 2006 The formal complaint filed by the Grievance Administrator charged that respondent, upon passing through the metal detector at the entrance to the Macomb County Circuit Court Building with packages in his hands, triggered the alarm. A Protective Services Officer stopped respondent and asked him to re-enter the detector and to place his packages on the conveyor belt. Respondent refused to place his packages on the conveyor belt and began to loudly claim that he had been assaulted. The complaint charged that respondent's conduct was in violation of MeR 9.104(A)(1), (2) and (4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c); 6.5(a); and 8.4(a) and (c).
The hearing panel unanimously granted the respondent's motion to dismiss Formal Complaint 06-02-GA, agreeing with respondent's counsel that the evide~nce, even when considered in the light most favorable to the positions taken by the Grievance Adrninistrator, do not support a finding that respondent's conduct violated the specific violations set fc)rth in the formal complaint. In particular, the panel was unable to conclude that respondent's conduct, even if it had been found to have been rude and belligerent, violated the literal languag(3 of the Macomb County Court's Administrative Order 1999-3. The panel also considered the arguments regarding the applicability of MRPC 6.5(a) and do not believe that the prohibitions against discourteous conduct in that rule extend to the factual situation presented here.
The formal complaint was dismissed, with prejudice, and with~:>ut costs.
.. 5 2006 \ Dated: ----------
---~-~--~-------------------------