Opinions and Orders

Decision Information

Decision Content

STATE OF MIICHIIGAN Attorney Discipline Board

FitfD UiSCIPUNE BOMB 15 ~AUG 27 4AM" HIf: 57

GRIIEVANCE ADMIINIISTRATOR,, Attttorrney Grriievance Commiissiion,,

Pettiittiionerr,, v JOHN S.. DAVIIDSON,, P 35979,, Respondentt.. _______________________________~ _I. 1

Case No.. 13--136--GA

ORDER AFFIIRMIING HEARIING PANEL ORDER OF DIISBARMENT IIssssuueedd bbyy tthhee Attttoorrnneeyy Diisscciipplliinnee Booaarrdd 221111 W.. Foorrtt Stt..., Sttee.. 11441100,, Deettrrooiitt,, MII Trrii--Countty Hearriing Panell #63 off tthe Attttorrney Diisciiplliine Boarrd ffound tthatt rrespondentt engaged iin commiinglliing,, miisapprroprriiatted iinvesttmentt ffunds whiille acttiing as ""paymastterr"" fforr ttwo jjoiintt ventturre agrreementts,, and ffaiilled tto prreserrve compllette rrecorrds off tthiirrd parrtty ffunds fforr a perriiod off ffiive yearrs afftterr tterrmiinattiion,, iin viiollattiion off MRPC 1..15((b))((2)),, and ((d)),, 8..4((b)),, and MCR 9..104((2)) and ((3))..1 The paneli orrderred tthatt rrespondentt be diisbarrrred,, effffecttiive Januarry 21,, 2015.. Respondentt ffiilled a pettiittiion fforr rreviiew and sttay off diisciiplliine.. Respondentt''s pettiittiion fforr sttay off diisciiplliine was deniied by tthe Boarrd iin an orrderr iissued Febrruarry 13,, 2015..

The Attttorrney Diisciiplliine Boarrd has conductted rreviiew prroceediings iin accorrdance wiitth MCR 9..118,, iinclludiing a rreviiew off tthe ttesttiimony and exhiibiitts submiitttted tto tthe panell and consiiderrattiion off tthe brriieffss and arrgumenttss prressentted tto tthe Boarrd att a rrevviiew hearriing cconducctted JJullyy 15,, 2015..

On rreviiew,, rrespondentt arrgued tthatt tthe wiitthdrrawalls ffrrom hiis ttrrustt accountt werre perrmiissiiblle,, and tthatt tthe diisciiplliine iimposed by tthe panell was excessiive because,, accorrdiing tto rrespondentt,, no miisapprroprriiattiion occurrrred.. Respondentt rrequestted tthatt tthe Boarrd vacatte tthe orrderr off diisbarrmentt,, diissmiissss allll ffiindiingss off miissapprroprriiattiion,, and entterr an orrderr iimpossiing rreducced diisscciiplliine ssollellyy fforr ffaiillurre tto maiinttaiin adequatte documenttattiion off hiis ttrrustt accountt..

IIn rreviiewiing a hearriing panell deciisiion,, tthe Boarrd mustt detterrmiine whettherr tthe panell''s ffiindiings off ffactt have ""prroperr eviidenttiiarry supporrtt on tthe wholle rrecorrd.."" Grriievance Admiiniisttrrattorr v Augustt,, 438 Miich 296,,304;; 475 NW2d 256 ((1991)).. See allso,, Grriievance Admiiniisttrrattorr v TT..

11 The hearriing panell diismiissed allllegattiions tthatt rrespondentt viiollatted MRPC 1..15((b) )((3)) and 8..1 ((a))((2))..

1

Patrick FreyddJl, 96-193-GA (ADB 1998). '"This standard is akin to the clearly erroneous standard [appellate courts] use in reviewing a trial court''s findings of fact in civil proceedings." Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 248 n 12 (2000) {(citing MCR 2.613 (C)ยป). The hearing panel''s misconduct report contains a very detailed review of the evidence presented and analysis of how that evidence either supported or failed to support the allegations of misconduct set forth in the formal complaint.

Our review of the records indicates that the bank records admitted by the Grievance Administrator provided the necessary support for the finding that respondent misappropriated funds received from both investors in this matter. Those records clearly indicated that respondent improperliy used a portion of the funds for personal transactions. Respondent''s self-serving claim that he did so because he was authorized by his clients, Mr. Symons and Alephia, to pay himself $2,500 from each $50,000 payment was not supported by any evidence. Thus, the hearing panel''s findings of misconduct, in particular that respondent engaged in misappropriation, have proper evidentiary support.

With respect to the hearing panel's decision to order disbarment, respondent did not question on review the hearing panel's conclusions as to the applicable ABA Standards or aggravating factors. Rather, respondent took issue with the cases cited by the Grievance Administrator and when they were presented to the panel.

First, we find nothing improper regarding the timing of the Grievance Administrator's presentation of cases to the panel. The October 23,2014 hearing was noticed as a "hearing on discipline;" scheduled for the sole purpose of determining the appropriate sanction to impose. It should therefore have come as no surprise to respondent that the Grievance Administrator's counsel would be presenting what he believed to be the applicable ABA Standards, aggravating factors, and relevant case law to support the Grievance Administrator's requested discipline.

Second, we find that the cases presented to the panel at the October 23, 2014 sanction hearing by the Grievance Administrator were relevant and applicable to the findings of misconduct made by the hearing panel. 22 By consciously choosing not to present any evidence, including mitigating evidence, respondent prevented any argument as to whether compelling mitigation existed which would warrant deviating from the presumptive disbarment level of discipline. As a result, respondent has not demonstrated that the sanction imposed by the panel is inappropriate under the ABA Standards or prior precedent. Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 239-240, 248, n 13.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order of disbarment issued on December 30,, 22014, is AFFIRMED.

2 The three cases cited by the Grievance Administrator's counsel were: Grievance Administrator v Frederick Petz, 99-102-GA (ADB 2001) (presumptive level of diSscCiiplliine for intentional/knowing misappropriation, absent compelling mitigation, is disbarment); Grievance Administrator v Mark J. TysJ/enko, 12-17 -GA (ADB 2013) (whether the funds are client funds or third party funds, the presumptive sanction is disbarment); Grievance Administrator v Terry A. Trott, 10-43-GA (ADB 2011)

(regardless of the amount of funds misappropriated, the presumptive sanction is disbarment).

2

IITT IISS FFUURRTTHHEERR OORRDDEERREEDD tthhaatt rreessppoonnddeenntt sshhaallll,, oonn oorr bbeeffoorree SSeepptteembbeerr 2255,, 22001155,, ppaayy ccoossttss iinn tthhee aamoouunntt ooff $$22,,007733..4499,, ccoonnssiissttiinngg ooff ccoossttss aasssseesssseedd bbyy tthhee hheeaarriinngg ppaanneell iinn tthhee aamoouunntt ooff $$11 ,,996666..6666 aanndd ccoouurrtt rreeppoorrttiinngg ccoossttss iinnccuurrrreedd bbyy tthhee AAttttoorrnneeyy DDiisscciipplliinnee BBooaarrdd iinn tthhee aamoouunntt ooff $$110066..8833 ffoorr tthhee rreevviieeww pprroocceeeeddiinnggss ccoonndduucctteedd oonn JJuullyy 1155,, 22001155.. CChheecckk oorr moonneeyy oorrddeerr sshhaallll bbee maaddee ppaayyaabbllee ttoo tthhee AAttttoorrnneeyy DDiisscciipplliinnee SSyysstteem,, bbuutt ssuubbmiitttteedd ttoo tthhee AAttttoorrnneeyy DDiisscciipplliinnee BBooaarrdd [[221111 Weesstt FFoorrtt SStt..,, SSttee.. 11441100,, DDeettrrooiitt,, MMII 4488222266]] ffoorr pprrooppeerr ccrreeddiittiinngg.. ((SSeeee aattttaacchheedd iinnssttrruuccttiioonn sshheeeett))..

BByy::

AATTTTOORRNNEEYY DDIISSCCIIPPLLIINNEE BBOOAARRDD

JJ

sM. Cameron, Jr., Chairperson

DDAATTEEDD:: AAuugguusstt2277,,22001155 BBooaarrdd meembbeerrss JJaameess M.. CCaameerroonn,, JJrr..,, LLaawwrreennccee GG.. CCaamppbbeellll,, DDuullccee M.. FFuulllleerr,, RRoossaalliinndd EE.. GGrriiffffiinn,, M..DD.. SSyyllvviiaa PP.. Whhiittmeerr,, PPhh.. DD..,, LLoouuaannnn VVaann DDeerr Wiieellee,, aanndd,, JJaameess AA. FFiinnkk ccoonnccuurr iinn tthhiiss ddeecciissiioonn.. BBooaarrdd meembbeerrss Miicchhaaeell Muurrrraayy aanndd JJoohhnn W.. IInnhhuullsseenn wweerree aabbsseenntt aanndd ddiidd nnoott ppaarrttiicciippaattee..

TThhee uunnddeerrssiiggnneedd cceerrttiiffiieess tthhaatt aa ccooppyy ooff tthhee ffoorreeggooiinngg ddooccuummeenntt wwaass sseerrvveedd uuppoonn tthhee RReessppoonnddeenntt vviiaa cceerrttiiffiieedd mmaaiill ((rreettuurrnn rreecceeiipptt rreeqquueesstteedd)),, aanndd aallll aattttoorrnneeyyss aanndd ppaarrttiieess ooff rreeccoorrdd iinn tthhee aabboovvee ccaauussee vviiaa ..rr eegguullaarr mmaaiill,, bbyy mm~~iilliinngg tthhee ssaammee ttoo tthheemm aatt tthheeiirr rreessppeeccttiivvee bbuussmmeessss aaddddrreesssseess aass ddiIsscclloosseedd bbyy ooffffiicciiaall lliissttiinnggss ooff tthhee SSttaattee BBaarr ooff MMiicchhiiggaann aanndd tthhee pplleeaaddiinnggss ooff rreeccoorrdd hheerreeiinn,, wwiitthh ppoossttaaggee ffuullllyy pprreeppaaiidd tthheerreeoonn oonn tthhee QcS\" "'1\ '~\'t"'\ ooff ~~~~ 2200 II ~ .. ~~ ddeeccllaarree tthhaatt tthhee ssttaatteemmeennttss 3ab~ ~trut ruee ttoo tthhee bbeesstt'' (l"""l"nin ooff mmyy mffoorrmaattllOonn,, kknnoowwlleeddggee aanndd bbeelliieeff.. 11 ~

. j .1 . .

33

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.