Opinion ID: 2103729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was the attorney grievance commission authorized to investigate the plaintiff's client trust accounts?

Text: Effective October 1, 1978, the prosecutorial and adjudicative functions of the State Bar Grievance Board were bifurcated. 402 Mich clvi. As a general proposition: Bifurcation created two separate and independent boards. The Attorney Grievance Commission was established to serve the prosecutorial function in supervising and disciplining Michigan attorneys (GCR 1963, 957); the Attorney Discipline Board performs the adjudicative functions (GCR 1963, 959). [ In re Daggs, 411 Mich 304, 313; 307 NW2d 66 (1981).][ [1] ] In addition to general statements of the authority of the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Attorney Discipline Board, the Michigan Court Rules specify certain powers and duties. The grievance administrator is appointed by the commission and subject to its supervision. [2] Under the Michigan Court Rules: The administrator has the power and duty to:    (5) investigate alleged misconduct of attorneys, including serving a request for investigation in his or her own name if necessary; (6) prosecute complaints the commission authorizes;    (8) perform other duties provided in these rules or assigned by the commission. [MCR 9.109(A).] The administrator's power to investigate is distinct from his power to prosecute complaints authorized by the commission. The rules do not limit authority of the administrator to misconduct alleged in a request to investigate, but instead extend the authority to any alleged misconduct. This is consistent with the power of the administrator to serve a request for investigation in his or her own name. See State Bar Grievance Administrator v McWhorter (On Rehearing), 407 Mich 278; 284 NW2d 472 (1979). Thus, the Michigan Court Rules specify a broad grant of power to the administrator to investigate misconduct. The facts at bar establish that the administrator's investigation of the plaintiff's client trust accounts was well within the power granted by the Michigan Court Rules. The administrator examined the account on which the plaintiff's NSF checks were drawn and uncovered a check which was apparently intended for deposit in a client trust account. The check was deposited in the same account upon which the plaintiff's NSF rent checks were drawn. [3] Thus, the administrator's review of the plaintiff's account revealed not only evidence of poor bookkeeping, but also evidence of an improper commingling of client funds. [4] This evidence does not necessarily establish misconduct on the part of respondent, but, when added to respondent's own admissions of poor bookkeeping, it is certainly evidence of some mismanagement of a client's funds. The administrator cannot be expected to turn his head when confronted with evidence of this kind. The professional disciplinary rules specify that the administrator has both the power and duty to investigate misconduct. MCR 9.109. We, therefore, find no impropriety in the further investigation of the plaintiff's client trust accounts by the grievance administrator on behalf of the commission.