BOARD MEMBERS JOHN L..COTE. CHAIRPERSON LEO A. FARHAT WILLIAM G- REAMON LYNN H. SHECTER. VICE-CHAIRPERSON
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. BOX 149 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48231
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND
JOHN F. X .DWAIHY EXECUTlVE DIRECTOR L
GENERAL COUNSEL SUITE 1260 3 3 3 W.FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226 T E L E P H O N E : ( ~ I ~9 )6 3 - 5 5 5 3
DP- 107 /8 3
JOHN A. JOHNSON (P 31442), 1055 Bridge S t . , N.W., Grand Rapids,.' M I , 49504, by Attorney Disc ip l ine Board Grand Rapids Hearing Panel #1:
(1) Reprimand; (2) Ef fec t ive November 8 , 1983.
1
The hearing panel found t h a t Respondent, seeking unemployment b e n e f i t s before t h e Michigan IBnployment Secur i ty Commission on behalf of a c l i e n t , requested subpoenas t o secure witnesses a t a hearing on appeal f i l e d by t h e opposing p a r t y ( the employer of Respondent's c l i e n t ) ; t h a t t h e Michigan Employment Secur i ty Commission r e f e r e e advised t h a t t h e subpoenas were unnecessary and refused t o i s s u e t h e same; t h a t Respondent, in s t ead of procuring subpoenas a s provided by appl icable r u l e s , served t h r e e wi tnesses wi th a S t a t e D i s t r i c t Court Subpoena form wi th the name of the r e f e r e e typed thereon a s t h e i s s u e r thereof ; t h a t the employer withdrew h i s appeal r a t h e r than undertake t h e c o s t of responding t o s a i d subpoenas. The panel found v i o l a t i o n s of GCR 1963, 953(1-4) and t h e Code of Profess ional Responsib i l i ty , to-wit: Canon 1, DR1-102(A) (1)( 4-6) and Canon 7 , DR7-101(5) ( 8 ) .
Although the panel found t h a t Respondent improperly caused sub- peonas t o be i ssued, the panel considered t h e following evidence i n m i t -
i ga t ion : Respondent apparently proceeded t o i s s u e t h e subpoenas v i t h t h e misguided b e l i e f t h a t he had a r i g h t , a s counsel f o r a par ty t o the a c t i o n , t o independently subpoena wi tnesses notwithstanding the r e f u s a l of the hearing o f f i c e r ; Respondent's r epu ta t ion was unblemished record; and, the recommendation of counsel f o r t h e Attorney Grievance Commission t h a t the panel should impose a reprimand. Costs were assessed aga ins t Respondent.
1
Dated:
November 15, 1983