State Bar Grievance Administrator v. Estes
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
This case comes to us on appeal from the State Bar Grievance Board (hereafter "Board”). Appellant áttorney, Walter O. Estes, contends both that the facts elicited in hearing panel testimony are insufficient to support a finding of unprofessional conduct, and that, in any case, such conduct as the Board found appellant engaged in does not present grounds warranting disciplinary suspension from the practice of law. Thus the facts in this case are of essential importance.
I—FACTS
Appellant represented a client, Earl Harmon, who was involved in a rear-end accident in East Lansing on September 7,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Kukla v. PerryMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
- Attorney General v. NelsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
- State Bar of Michigan v. DaggsMichigan Supreme Court · 1971
- Henderson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1965
- Eaton v. KnowlesMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Geoffrey N. Fieger v. Philip J. Thomas, Grievance Administrator, and Michigan Attorney Grievance CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- Grievance Administrator v. FiegerMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
- Payne v. MuskegonMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Acheson v. WhiteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- In the Matter of GrimesMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.