Legal Opinion

Grievance Administrator v. Underwood

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 2000No. 113180, Calendar No. 10PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCavanagh, J.

This attorney discipline case requires us to decide whether respondent Underwood’s delayed petition for review was timely under MCR 9.118(A)(3). That rale directs the Attorney Discipline Board (adb) to treat the one-year limitation period in MCR 7.205(F) as a guideline, rather than as an absolute deadline. Because we hold that under the circumstances of this case, the adb did not abuse its discretion in considering respondent’s petition despite the one-year “guideline,” we must determine the appropriate sanction for Underwood’s misconduct. In light of our recent decision in Grievance…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re MCI Telecommunications ComplaintMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Tryc v Michigan Veterans’ FacilityMichigan Supreme Court · 1996
  3. McAuley v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Grievance Administrator v. LopatinMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Perez v. Keeler Brass Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2000

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. Craig v. Oakwood HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  2. People v. Watkins; People v. PullenMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Barnard Manufacturing Co. v. Gates Performance Engineering, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Haliw v. City of Sterling HeightsMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  5. People v. HawkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 2003

54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API