Attorney Grievance Comm v. Attorney Discipline Bd
This text of Attorney Grievance Comm v. Attorney Discipline Bd (Attorney Grievance Comm v. Attorney Discipline Bd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
February 26, 2016 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice
Stephen J. Markman 153046(7)(8) Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Joan L. Larsen, Justices Plaintiff,
v SC: 153046
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD, Defendant. ________________________________________/
On order of the Chief Justice, the parties’ stipulated motion to extend the time for defendant to file its answer to the complaint for superintending control is GRANTED. The answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before March 9, 2016. On further order of the Chief Justice, defendant’s motion to seal from public disclosure its answer to the complaint for superintending control is GRANTED.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. February 26, 2016
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Attorney Grievance Comm v. Attorney Discipline Bd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attorney-grievance-comm-v-attorney-discipline-bd-mich-2016.