Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS STATE OF MICHIGAN REV. MICHAEL MURRAY CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD VICE·CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY

SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN

KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR.

LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD ANNA FRUSHOUR

211 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1410

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226·3236 PHONE: 313·963·5553 I FAX: 313·963·5571

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR

KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR

ALL YSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER

OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER

JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTION/STISECRETARY

ww.w adbmich.org

DISMISSAL

Case No. 18-66-GA

Richard Eriksen, P 13217, Waterford, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #66.

Dismissal - Effective December 20, 2018.

The essential allegation in the formal complaint was that respondent had ex parte written and oral communication with an individual who was represented by other counsel at the time the communications occurred. The unrebutted testimony, as well as the exhibits presented at the hearing indicated that respondent's contacts with the individual were in the context of his role as "trustee" of the estate, rather than as an "individual," and the panel found that respondent did not know the individual was represented when he communicated with him via letter on June 9, 2016.

There was an additional allegation that, during a telephone conversation between respondent and opposing counsel, respondent spoke in an inappropriate manner. The panel found that the conversation occurred in the context of an emotionally charged dialogue between attorneys and the language used by respondent did not constitute language that would be considered to be an ethical violation.

The panel found that the Grievance Administrator failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct alleged in the formal complaint (MRPC 4.2 and 6.5(a); and MCR 9.104(1), (2) and (3)). No costs were assessed against respondent. Na

Mark A. Armitage Executive Director

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.