Timothy a Stoepker v. Attorney Discipline Board

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decided: October 2, 2013
• Docket: 147494
• Status: Published

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

October 2, 2013 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman 147494 & (4)(5)(7)(8) Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano, TIMOTHY A. STOEPKER, Justices Plaintiff, v SC: 147494 ADB: 13-000032-GA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD, Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The motion to dismiss is DENIED. The complaint for superintending control is considered and – the Court having concluded that the Attorney Discipline Board failed in part to perform a clear legal duty and abused its discretion in part by denying the plaintiff’s application for review of the hearing panel’s order denying the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss – the May 6, 2013 order of the hearing panel is VACATED in part. The portions of the formal complaint against the plaintiff that allege attorney misconduct premised on violations of Section 54 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, MCL 169.254, are moot in light of Citizens United v Federal Election Comm’n, 558 US 310; 130 S Ct 876; 175 L Ed 2d 753 (2010). See In re Investigative Subpoenas, 780 NW2d 585 (2010). Relief is otherwise DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief prior to the completion of the attorney discipline proceedings. The motion to stay is DENIED as moot.

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. October 2, 2013 s0925 Clerk