BOARD MCYICRS JOHN L. COIL. CHIIRPCRSO* L C 0 A. FARWAT MSOR. CLCMCNT H . RCRN OAVIO IARCR LEWIS. SECRETARY FRANK J - MCOCVITT. 0 . 0 . WILLIAM G. RCAMON LYNN H . SHECTER. VICE-CHAIRPERSON
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 1 4 9 DETROIT. MICHIGAN 4 6 ~ 3 1
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION
JOHN r. X . OWNMY EXECUTIVC OIRECTOR 6 GENERAL COUNSCL
SUITE 1280 3 3 3 W. FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 8 T E L E P H o N c : { ~ I ~ )9 0 3 - 5 5 5 3
F i l e No. DP-253/82 DP-108/82 DP-149/81
GOLDWYN J . ROBINSON (P 19519), 6736 El izabeth , Garden Ci ty , MI, 48135, by Attorney Disc ipl ine Board Wayne County Hearing Panel #1.
(1) Suspension; (2) For a period of twelve (12) months; (3) Effect ive July 18, 1983.
The hearing panel made the following findings: Respon- dent was a s a l a r i e d employee of a c e r t a i n mortgage company and was, f o r a period, an o f f i c e r i n s a i d company; Respondent's p r i n c i p a l l e g a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were t o sa id mortgage company f o r the co l l ec t ion of delinquent accounts, foreclosure of mortgages and the incorpora t ion of prospective borrowers; incorpora t ion of prospective borrowers of Re- spondent 's employer was done s o t h a t the mortgage company could charge those borrowers 24% i n t e r e s t pe r year on t h e i r mortgage notes ; the mortgage company s o l i c i t e d s a i d mortgages by advertisement; t h e s a l e s package given t o prospective borrowers included an "a t torney r e t a i n e r agreement" providing f o r employment of Respondent a s t h e a t torney who would arrange o r procure a mortgage fo r a gross ly excessive f ee ranging from $1,000 t o $8,000 depending on the s i z e of t h e mortgage and although Respondent never received an amount i n excess of $80 ( t h e balance of s a i d "fee" being co l l ec ted by t h e mortgage company), Respondent know- ingly permitted the use of sa id agreement and did nothing t o terminate h i s r e l a t ionsh ip with the mortgage company; t h a t Respondent knew o r should have known t h a t the co l l ec t ion of s a i d "fees" was an improper
p rac t i ce by h i s employer; t h a t i n the four years of h i s employment by the mortgage company, Respondent incorporated approximately 700 app l i - cants for mortgage loans f o r t h e s o l e purpose of permit t ing a charge of the maximum permissible amount of i n t e r e s t ; Respondent incorporated individual persons he never a c t u a l l y met and was present inf requent ly when the mortgagor appeared t o execute the mortgage note and mortgage; some prospective mortgagors d id no t know they had been incorporated u n t i l they had received a copy of t h e i r corporate c e r t i f i c a t e a f t e r completion of the mortgage loan; Respondent made no e f f o r t t o expla in t o prospective mortgagors t h a t it might not be i n t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t t o incorporate and pay t h e maximum permissible r a t e of i n t e r e s t , there- by permit t ing damage t o h i s c l i e n t s .
The panel found t h a t Respondent improperly entered i n t o busrness t r a n s a c t i o n s wi th sa id c l i e n t s , continued rep resen ta t ion of mul t ip le c l i e n t s a f t e r learn- ing of the exis tence of s a i d object ionable a t to rney r e t a i n e r agreement and knowing t h a t the p ro fe r red employment would be adversely a f fec ted by his rep- r e sen ta t ion of t h e mortgage ccmpany, and permitted h i s employer to r e g u l a t e
a n d d r e c t h i s p ro fess iona l judgment while rendering l e g a l se rv ices t o pro- spect ive borrowers. The panel found v io la t ions of Canons 2 , 5 , and 7 of the Code of P ro fess iona l Responsibi l i ty , to-wit: DR2-106(A), DR5-105, DRS-107 and DR7-lOl(3).
Dated: Ju ly 26, 1983