BOARD MEMBERS WILLIAM G. REAMON. CHAIRPERSON LYNN H. SHECTER, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BERNADINE N. DENNING. SECRETARY JOHN L . COT^ LEO A. FARHAT PATRICK J. KEATING CHARLES C. VINCENT. M. 0.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
NOTICE OF B e P R a U N D
JOHN F. X. DWAIHY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 6 GENERAL COUNSEL
SUITE 1260 3 3 3 W.FORT STREET DETROIT, MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 6 TELEPHONE: (313) 9 6 3 - 5 5 5 3
F i l e No. 244-82
ROSS B, HERETSKY, P17632, 1527 F i r s t N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g , D e t r o i t , Michigan 48226, by the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board vaca t ing a hear ing panel o rde r of d i smissa l .
( 1 ) Reprimand ( 2 ) E f f e c t i v e September 6 , 1984. The Board, upon review, found t h a t Respondent issued a l e t t e r t o a c l i e n t which threatened t o d i s c l o s e c e r t a i n information obta ined d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p and which c o n s t i t u t e d a n improper a t t empt t o use confidences o r s e c r e t s of a c l i e n t t o the disadvantage of the c l i e n t . The opinion of the Board s t a t e d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : ".. . the adverse impa . c . t . upon t h e l e g a l p ro fe s s ion of t h i s w r i t t e n communication cannot be condoned - r ega rd l e s s of the c h a r a c t e r o r i n t e n t i o n s of the c l i e n t as perceived by the Respondent. I t is a b s o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l t o our system of j u s t i c e t h a t t h e p u b l i c be u n i n h i b i t e d i n s e e k i n g l e g a l a d v i c e ; the pub l i c must have f i rm confidence i n t he c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of t h e i r communications w i t h l e g a l counsel whether they be to s ecu re a defense a g a i n s t formal c i v i l o r c r imina l charges, o r a n e f f o r t t o comply wi th the requi rements of the law wi th r e s p e c t t o bus iness , personal , o r c i v i l a f f a i r s . Whi le t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e o f a c t u a l d i s c l o s u r e of c l i e n t c o n f i d e n c e s i n t h i s c a s e , t h e v e r y t h r e a t of d i s c l o s u r e is a s e r i o u s breach of e t h i c s . "
The Board considered c e r t a i n m i t i g a t i n g evidence; c o s t s were as ses sed .