Opinions and Orders

Decision Information

Decision Content

STATE OF MICHIGAN Attorney Discipline Board

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Attorney Grievance Commission,

Petitioner!A ppellee, v TIMOTHY A. STOEPKER, P 31297, Respondent/Appellant. ________________________~ I

FlLEO 41 roRNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

14 APR '7 AM If: I 2

Case No. 13-32-GA

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S APPLICATIONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW OF HEARING PANEL DENIAL OF RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S BURDEN OF PROOF

Issued by the Attorney Discipline Board 211 W. Fort St., Ste. 1410, Detroit, MI

The Attorney Discipline Board has considered respondent's application for leave to appeal the hearing panel's January 20, 2014 order denying respondent's request for issuance of requests for admission and respondent's application for leave to appeal the hearing panel's February 20, 2014 order denying respondent's motion in limine regarding Grievance Administrator's burden of proof in this matter. The Board has also considered the Grievance Administrator's response in opposition to both applications, as well as respondent's March 13,2014 responsive brief; and the Board is otherwise fully advised;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the applications for leave to petition for interlocutory review filed by respondent are DENIED for the reason that the Board is not persuaded that the hearing panel's orders of January 20, 2014, and February 20, 2104 were entered erroneously or that interlocutory review of either order is appropriate, as is set forth more fully in the accompanying opinion of the Board issued this day.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

DATED: April 17, 2014

By:

~~-s,..~~fN-. . Cameron, Jr., Chairperson

Board members James M. Cameron, Jr., Craig H. Lubben, Sylvia P. Whitmer, Ph.D., Rosalind E. Griffin, M.D., Carl E. Ver Beek, Dulce M. Fuller, and Louann Van Der Wiele concur in this decision.

Board members Lawrence G. Campbell and Michael Murray did not participate.

 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.