No. 18-822

Steven G. Cohen v. Grievance Administrator, Attorney Grievance Commission of Michigan

Lower Court: Michigan
Docketed: 2018-12-28
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: attorney-discipline civil-rights due-process first-amendment free-speech free-speech-petition judicial-corruption judicial-misconduct petition petition-clause professional-ethics professional-misconduct rosa-parks-estate
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw FirstAmendment DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-02-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the arbitrary, contradictory and fact-free proceedings conducted by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board violated Petitioner's rights under the Free Speech and Petition Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This case arises out of the estate of civil rights icon Rosa Parks. In 2011, after years of appellate proceedings, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order reversing, inter alia, a string of decisions made by a corrupt probate court judge that had confiscated separate, non-probate property of the sole beneficiaries of the estate (Petitioner’s clients) and awarded it to courtappointed cronies who had no connection to Mrs. Parks. After reversal, Petitioner filed a damages action against the fiduciaries and a motion to disqualify the probate judge that contained allegations of judicial corruption wholly consistent with the successful appellate briefs. The action and motion were dismissed without any proceedings or trial. Three years later a formal professional ethics complaint was filed . . . against Petitioner. The complaint alleged that the action and motion were frivolous, discourteous, and prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. When the Petitioner attempted to defend against the ethics charges by demonstrating that these pleadings were factually accurate and legally meritorious, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board barred Petitioner’s evidence and cited him for professional misconduct, bizarrely holding that, “The truth is not relevant” and “We don’t care what happened in the probate case.” The question presented for review is as follows: WHETHER THE ARBITRARY, CONTRADICTORY AND FACT-FREE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY ii QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued DISCIPLINE BOARD VIOLATED PETITIONER’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FREE SPEECH AND PETITION CLAUSES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.

Docket Entries

2019-02-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
2019-02-04
Waiver of right of respondent Grievance Administrator, Attorney Grievance Commission of Michigan to respond filed.
2018-12-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 28, 2019)

Attorneys

Grievance Administrator, Attorney Grievance Commission of Michigan
Robert E. EdickMichigan Attorney Grievance Commission, Respondent
Robert E. EdickMichigan Attorney Grievance Commission, Respondent
Steven G. Cohen
Steven G. CohenCohen & Associates PC, Petitioner
Steven G. CohenCohen & Associates PC, Petitioner