BOARD MEMBERS FREOERICR G BuESSER JR J O H N L COTE. CHAIRPERSON MSGR CLEMENT n KERN DAVID BA-ER LEWIS SECRETARY FRANK J MCDEvlTT 0 0 WILLIAM G AEAMON LYNN H SHECTER. VICE-CHAIRPERSON
SUITE 1 2 6 0 3 3 3 W FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 6
TELEPHONE 13131 9 6 3 - 5 5 5 3
This i s t o i n fo rm the Courts of t h e S ta te o f Michigan o f the f o l l o w i n g Order o f D i s c i p l i n e :
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND F i l e No. DP-13/80 Related: 35695 CARL M . WEIDEFIAN, JR. (P22096), 27050 Gloede, Warren, M I 48093, by At torney D i s c i p l i n e Oakland C i r c u i t Hearing Panel " C " .
( 1 ) Reprimand; (2 ) E f f e c t i v e September 24, 1980. The Formal Complaint charges t h a t : Respondent was re ta ined t o l i t i g a t e a c e r t a i n probate mat ter ; t h a t Respondent was p a i d a , subs tan t i a l r e t a i n e r fee; t h a t Respondent, upon te rm ina t i on o f h i s serv ices and appearanceofsubst i tu te counsel, f a i l e d t o r e t u r n $2,000 advanced by t h e c l i e n t f o r costs; t h a t Respondent f a i l e d t o answer the c l i e n t ' s i n q u i r i e s regard ing progress o f t h e case and al lowed the s t a t u t o r y pe r iod f o r reopening the es ta te t o pass w i thou t a P e t i t i o n f o r Rehearing o r a P e t i t i o n t o Extend Time t o F i l e Claims o r Set Aside the Account; t h a t Respondent f a i l e d t o f i l e a C i r c u i t Court a c t i o n seeking equ i tab le r e l i e f which the Probate Court cou ld not render, i n v i o l a t i o n o f Canon 6, DR 6-101 (A) ( 1 ) ( 3 ) , Canon 7,
DR 7-101 (A) ( 2 ) , Canon 9, DR 9-102 ( B ) (3-4) o f the Code o f Pro-
f ess iona l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
The Panel found t h a t Respondent was re ta ined t o secure a proper account ing and f u l l va lua t i on o f the assets contained i n the e s t a t e o f t h e c l i e n t ' s l a t e spouse; cont ingent fee agreement was executed and Respondent, i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s fee, was advanced $2,000 t o be deposi ted i n h i s c l i e n t ' s t r u s t account f o r payment o f cos ts as incur red; t h a t Respondent f a i l e d t o l i t i g a t e the probate issues and al lowed the s t a t u t o r y pe r iod f o r the reopening o f the e s t a t e t o pass w i thou t a P e t i t i o n f o r Rehearing o r P e t i t i o n t o Extend Time t o F i l e Claims o r Set Aside Accounting; t h a t Respondent f a i l e d t o r e p l y
t o h i s c l i e n t ' s l e t t e r s and f a i l e d t o f i l e a C i r c u i t Court ac t i on ; and, Respondent encountered no costs bu t re fused t o r e t u r n t h e sum advanced f o r the same. The Panel considered the f o l l o w i n g i n m i t i - ga t ion : Respondent has p r a c t i c e d law f o r 31 years w i t h no p r i o r record o f misconducf; Respondent considered the sub jec t of t he
CARL M. WEIDEMAN, JR., NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (Continued)
Complaint t o be e s s e n t i a l l y a fee d i s p u t e and the re was no i n t e n t t o permanently depr ive the c l i e n t o f p rope r t y o r sums owed t o the c l i e n t ; Respondent's ac t i ons i n r e f u s i n g t o l i t i g a t e the probate issues and h i s omissions a l l ow ing e x p i r a t i o n o f t he s t a t u t o r y pe r iod f o r reopening the es ta te , a1 though o f quest ionab le e f f icacy , was a t r i a l s t ra tegy and t h i s aspect o f the mat ter d i d n o t i nvo l ve neg lec t ; Respondent made f u l l r e s t i t u t i o n o f the sums invo lved; a pe r iod o f two and one-half years elapsed from the t ime of i n v e s t i - g a t i o n t o the t ime of t h e f i l i n g o f t he Formal Complaint.
The Hearing Panel determined t h a t Respondent had v i o l a t e d Canon 6, DR 6-101 ( A ) ( 1 ) and ( 3 ) i n t h a t he had a duty t o handle the ma t te r competently and w i thou t neg lec t . The Panel found a v i o l a t i o n o f Canon 7, DR 7-101 (A) ( 2 ) based on Respondent's
f a i l u r e t o c a r r y ou t h i s c o n t r a c t o f employment and Canon 9, DR 9- 102 (B) ( 3 ) and (4 ) i n t h a t Respondent f a i l e d t o prompt ly pay over and d e l i v e r t o the c l i e n t funds ($2,000 f o r cos ts ) which the c l i e n t was e n t i t l e d t o rece ive. Respondent was assessed costs i n t h e amount of $81.80. Ne i the r Respondent nor the Grievance Admin- i s t r a t o r f i l e d a P e t i t i o n f o r Review w i t h the At torney D i s c i p l i n e Board.
October 21, 1980.
David Baker Lewis, Secre tary ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD