Randy Patterson v. Attorney Grievance Commission

Michigan Supreme Court

Randy Patterson v. Attorney Grievance Commission

DecidedJune 3, 2015

Docket150085

StatusPublished

This text of Randy Patterson v. Attorney Grievance Commission (Randy Patterson v. Attorney Grievance Commission) 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.

Bluebook

Randy Patterson v. Attorney Grievance Commission, (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

June 3, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly 150085 Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein, RANDY PATTERSON, Justices Plaintiff, v SC: 150085 AGC: 0031-13 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

_________________________________________/

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 to close AGC File No. 0031-13, specifically explaining why it found that respondent attorney did not commit misconduct when the property at issue was sold based on an appraisal that did not include evaluation of the gas and mineral rights on the property. 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.

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. June 3, 2015 a0527 Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

June 3, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly 150085 Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein, RANDY PATTERSON, Justices Plaintiff, v SC: 150085 AGC: 0031-13 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

_________________________________________/

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 to close AGC File No. 0031-13, specifically explaining why it found that respondent attorney did not commit misconduct when the property at issue was sold based on an appraisal that did not include evaluation of the gas and mineral rights on the property. 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.

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. June 3, 2015 a0527 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Randy Patterson v. Attorney Grievance Commission, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randy-patterson-v-attorney-grievance-commission-mich-2015.