BOARD MEMBERS FREDERICK 6,.B UESSER. JR. JOHN L. COTE, CnAlRPERSON HSGR CLEMENT H. KERN DAVID BAKER LEWIS. SECRETARY FRANK J. MCDEVITT. 0 . 0 WILLIAM G. REAMON LYNN H. SHECTER. . VICE-CHAIRPERSON
STATE O F MICHIGAN
JOHN F X DWAIHY Executive Director & General Counsel SUITE 1 2 6 0 333 W. FOR7 STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226
TELEPHONE: (3131 9 6 3 - 5 5 5 3
This is to inform the Courts of the State of Michigan of the following Order of Discipline: NOTICE OF REPRIMAND File No. DP-3/80 Related No. 37176 and 36285 RODNEY WATTS, (P26832), 12850 Woodward Avenue, #202, Highland Park, MI 48203, by Order of the Attorney Discipline Board affirming the decision of its Wayne Circuit Hearing Panel "En. ( 1) Reprimand ; (2) Effective October 21, 1980. Respondent was charged in a three (3) count Formal Complaint with: Receiving a substantial retainer to in- stitute a civil action, and despite repeated inquiries from the client, failure, neglect and/or refusal to communicate with said client or return said fee, in violation of Canons 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 and GCR 953 (1-5); Failure to respond to the Grievance Administrator's Request for Investigation regarding the subject matter of said Count I; Improper handling of client funds, issuance of a check as partial payment of funds due a client against a personal account, although said client funds should have been deposited in a client trust account, said check having been dishonored for insufficient funds. Regarding the charge of improper use of client funds, the Complaint stated that Respondent did make non-timely payment in full to the client several months after the same was due; however, the Complaint charged that Respondent was unauthorized to make personal use of the funds, and comingled them with his own funds, and con- verted them to his own use, in violation of Canons 1 and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102 (A), DR 9-102 (A) (U), and GCR 953 (2-5). The Hearing Panel found that the Grievance Admin- istrator failed to prove the allegations contained in Count I; however, the Panel found that Respondent was in technical violation of the rules for failure to answer the Request for
Notice of Reprimand Rodney Watts P26832
I n v e s t i g a t i o n r e g a r d i n g Count I , a l t h o u g h s a i d v i o l a t i o n was m i t i g a t e d by a clerical misunders tand ing . Regarding Count 111, i n v o l v i n g c l i e n t f u n d s , t h e Pane l found t h a t Respondent a d m i t t e d having been r e t a i n e d by t h e c l i e n t and having r e c e i v e d $4,896.05 on b e h a l f o f s a i d c l i e n t i n r e l a t i o n t o a r e a l e s t a t e c l o s i n g ; Respondent a l s o a d m i t t e d having main ta ined a c l i e n t t r u s t account . The Hearing Pane l f u r t h e r found t h a t $1,780.07 was due t h e c l i e n t from Respondent a s a r e s u l t o f s a i d t r a n s a c t i o n , and t h a t Respondent i s s u e d a check i n t h e amount o f $1,000.00, drawn upon h i s p e r s o n a l account , which was d i shonored f o r i n s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s , and t h a t Respondent, s e v e r a l months a f t e r s a i d payment was due, d i d i s s u e a c a s h i e r ' s check i n f u l l s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e amount owed t o t h e c l i e n t . Although t h e Pane l found t h a t Respondent was n o t a u t h o r i z e d t o make p e r s o n a l use o f s a i d f u n d s , t h e Pane l s p e c i f i c a l l y r e j e c t e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t Respondent c o n v e r t e d s a i d funds t o h i s own u s e ; r a t h e r , t h e Panel found t h a t Respondent conver ted s a i d f u n d s f o r t h e temporary u s e o f a s e p a r a t e , i n d i g e n t c l i e n t and d i d n o t comingle t h e c l i e n t funds w i t h h i s own, nor use t h e same f o r h i s own b e n e f i t . Regarding Count 111, t h e Pane l found a v i o l a t i o n o f Canon 9, DR 9-102 ( B ) ( 3 - 4 ) , b u t s p e c i f i c a l l y r u l e d t h a t Respondent had n o t v i o l a t e d any o t h e r d i s c i p l i n a r y r u l e a s a l l e g e d . The Panel c o n s i d e r e d s e v e r a l m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g Respondent ' s i n e x p e r i e n c e and you th , and absence o f c r i m i n a l i n t e n t , e v e n t u a l payment t o c l i e n t of t h e funds due, no p r i o r r e c o r d of misconduct and o t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s . C o s t s w e r e a s s e s s e d i n t h e amount o f $479.06. Pursuan t t o a P e t i t i o n f o r Review f i l e d by t h e Grievance A d m i n i s t r a t o r , t h e At to rney D i s c i p l i n e Board a f f i rmed t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Panel i n a l l r e s p e c t s .
Date of I s suance :
&.A, David Baker Lewis, S e c r e t a r y ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD MlR 1 3 1981