From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gursten v. Attorney Grievance Comm'n

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Jun 22, 2016
879 N.W.2d 875 (Mich. 2016)

Opinion

Docket No. 152816.

06-22-2016

Steven M. GURSTEN, Plaintiff, v. ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.


Order

On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered. Because the Attorney Grievance Commission did not sufficiently communicate the basis for its decision, we DIRECT it to provide a supplemental response, within 28 days of the date of this order, in support of its decision not to initiate formal proceedings in AGC File No. 0935–14. The explanation must reference the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and address the allegations that the respondent attorney altered law firm records to indicate that files were closed, when it appears that they were not, and that the respondent attorney continued to represent those particular clients after the law firm's files were closed. The supplemental answer will be considered part of the AGC file and held confidential pursuant to MCR 9.126.

The complaint for superintending control remains pending.

McCORMACK, J., did not participate because she may have independent knowledge regarding this case.

BERNSTEIN, J., did not participate due to his prior relationship with the Sam Bernstein Law Firm.


Summaries of

Gursten v. Attorney Grievance Comm'n

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Jun 22, 2016
879 N.W.2d 875 (Mich. 2016)
Case details for

Gursten v. Attorney Grievance Comm'n

Case Details

Full title:Steven M. GURSTEN, Plaintiff, v. ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan.

Date published: Jun 22, 2016

Citations

879 N.W.2d 875 (Mich. 2016)