DRAFT Amended Complaint … · Web viewPetitioner, Grievance Administrator, is authorized by MCR...

State of MichiganAttorney Discipline Board

Grievance Administrator,Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission,

Petitioner, Case No. 15-95-PI; 15-96-GA; 15-97-JCv

Jared Thomas Green, P76648,

Respondent.__________________________________/

Amended Formal Complaint

Petitioner, upon information and belief, states the following:

1. Petitioner, Grievance Administrator, is authorized by MCR 9.109(B)(6) to

prosecute this Formal Complaint by the Attorney Grievance Commission, which is the

prosecution arm of the Supreme Court for the discharge of its constitutional

responsibility to supervise and discipline Michigan attorneys.

2. As a licensed Michigan attorney, Respondent is subject to the jurisdiction

of the Supreme Court and the Attorney Discipline Board as set forth in MCR 9.104.

3. Michigan attorneys have a duty to conduct themselves personally and

professionally at all times in conformity with the standards imposed on members of the

bar as a condition of the privilege to practice law.

4. Respondent, Jared Thomas Green (P76648), is a Michigan attorney who

was licensed to practice law in 2012 and who resides or has his place of business in the

County of Oakland.

{00326256.DOCX}

5. Prior to August 3, 2015, Petitioner’s staff had been unsuccessful in all

attempts to communicate with Respondent.

6. On August 3, 2015, Petitioner’s investigator located an additional address

and contact number for Respondent.

7. On August 3, 2015, Petitioner’s investigator made contact with

Respondent and learned from Respondent that he had recently been discharged from

Kingswood Psychiatric Hospital.

8. On August 3, 2015, Respondent stated to Petitioner’s investigator that

“there was no way in hell [he was] fit to practice law.”

9. On August 3, 2015, Respondent stated to Petitioner’s investigator that his

psychiatrist was also of the belief that he was not fit to practice law.

10. On August 3, 2015, Respondent voluntarily faxed a signed letter

attempting to “resign” from the practice of law.

11. On August 5, 2015, Petitioner received a signed letter mailed from

Respondent attempting to “resign” from the practice of law.

12. Friend of Respondent and Complainant in RI File No. 0328-15, Attorney

Lauren Fibel, states she feels “extreme anxiety about [Respondent’s] ability to

competently practice law.”

13. Respondent may be incapacitated to continue the practice of law because

of mental or physical infirmity or disability or because of addiction to drugs or

intoxicants.

14. Pursuant to MCR 9.121(B)(1), Petitioner requests that this matter be

assigned to a hearing panel to conduct a hearing to determine whether Respondent is

{00326256.DOCX}

incapacitated to continue the practice of law and whether to transfer him to inactive

status.

15. Pursuant to MCR.9.121(B)(4), Petitioner requests that the following counts

charging Respondent with professional misconduct be held in abeyance pending the

decision regarding his incapacitation.

Count One

(Kathy Kennedy: RI-0368-15)

(Factual Allegations)

16. In or about April 2014, Kathy Kennedy retained Respondent to enforce her

divorce settlement and was assured her case would be settled with less than 10 hours

of billable time.

17. To date, approximately 64 hours have been billed and the case is still

pending.

18. Complainant has paid Respondent $6,400.00.

19. Complainant contacted Respondent repeatedly by text, email, and phone

with little to no response.

20. Despite numerous attempts, Ms. Kennedy was unable to contact

Respondent for substantial amounts of time during the course of representation

between June 2014 and February 2015.

21. Respondent has failed to appear for court appearances in this matter.

22. Respondent has failed to schedule mediation in this matter.

23. Respondent has failed to provide a copy of the representation file to Ms.

Kennedy, including documents filed with the court.

{00326256.DOCX}

24. On or about February 2, 2015, Respondent contacted Complainant by

email stating that her case had been turned over to another attorney, Ellen Paynter.

25. Complainant contacted Attorney Paynter and learned that Respondent

had requested she take over his cases but never provided her with any files or details.

26. Complainant and successor counsel have attempted to retrieve

Respondent’s file with no success.

(Grounds for Discipline)

27. By reason of the conduct described above in Count One of this Formal

Complaint, Respondent has committed the following misconduct and is subject to

discipline under MCR 9.104 as follows:

a) Neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation

of MRPC 1.1 (c);

b) Failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client

through reasonably available means permitted

by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2 (a);

c) Failed to act with reasonable diligence and

promptness in representing a client, in violation

of MRPC 1.3;

d) Failed to communicate with the client, in

violation of MRPC 1.4 (a);

e) Failed to return the unearned portion of the

advance payment of fee, in violation of MRPC

1.16 (d);

{00326256.DOCX}

f) Failed to surrender papers and property to

which the client is entitled, in violation of MRPC

1.16 (d);

g) Engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper

administration of justice, in violation of MCR

9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4 (c);

i) Engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession

or the court to obloquy, contempt, censure, or

reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and

j) Engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics,

honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).

Count Two

(Ellen Paynter: RI 0309-15)


28. Ellen Paynter is a licensed Michigan attorney who provided coverage on a

matter when Respondent was unable to appear.

29. On or about January 20, 2015, Respondent asked Attorney Paynter by

email to appear in Marie Ann Caldwell v Ronald Glen Caldwell, Oakland County Circuit

Court Case Number 2014-82011-DM on behalf of Marie Caldwell.

30. Respondent asked Attorney Paynter to secure an adjournment in the

matter.

{00326256.DOCX}

31. Attorney Paynter contacted opposing counsel and learned that the court

would not allow an adjournment due to two prior adjournments requested by

Respondent and granted by the court.

32. Attorney Paynter appeared on the case despite not having an opportunity

to speak with Respondent concerning the file.

33. Attorney Paynter explained to the court the email from Respondent and

was granted a one week adjournment.

34. After Attorney Paynter’s initial appearance in the matter, she attempted to

contact Respondent repeatedly over the course of a week and was unsuccessful.

35. Attorney Paynter ultimately facilitated the following documents as co-

counsel in the matter she covered for Respondent, without his input:

a) Judgment of Divorce;

b) Advice of Rights to Opt Out of FOC;

c) Order Opting Out of FOC;

d) Uniform Child Support Order;

e) Uniform Spousal Support Order;

f) Domestic Relations Judgment Information Form; and

g) Qualified Domestic Relations Order

36. On or about February 2, 2015, Attorney Paynter received an email from

Respondent stating he needed help and wanted her to take over some of his cases.

37. On or about February 2, 2015, Attorney Paynter responded to his request

and asked for a specific list of Respondent’s cases, case numbers, counties the cases

were in, and a brief description of the facts in all cases he wanted her to handle.

{00326256.DOCX}

38. Respondent never followed up with Attorney Paynter regarding her

request for additional information regarding the cases.

39. On or about February 2, 2015, Attorney Paynter contacted the Lawyer’s

and Judge’s Assistance Program (LJAP) regarding Respondent.

40. On or about February 2, 2015, Attorney Paynter received a phone call

from an LJAP representative advising Complainant to file a Request for Investigation.

41. Attorney Paynter provided a string of emails between her and Respondent

detailing his requests for assistance, his statement concerning his Lithium intake, how it

was affecting him, and acknowledgment of the missed court appearance.


42. By reason of the conduct described above in Count Two of this Formal



a) Neglected a legal matter by abandoning client matters, in violation

of MRPC 1.1(c);

b) Failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in

representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3;

c) Failed to communicate with the client, in violation of MRPC 1.4 (a);

d) Engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of

justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4 (c);

e) Engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the court

to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR

9.104(2); and

{00326256.DOCX}

f) Engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or

good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).

Count Three

(Lauren Fibel: RI 0328-15)


43. Complainant, Lauren Fibel is a licensed attorney and law school friend of

Respondent.

44. Between 2014 and 2015, Attorney Fibel referred several clients to

Respondent.

45. Several of those clients who retained Respondent, contacted her because

they had not heard from Respondent after retaining him.

46. Attorney Fibel attempted to contact Respondent several times and was

unable to reach him.

47. On or about February 3, 2015, Attorney Fibel contacted LJAP for advice

concerning Respondent.

48. On or about February 3, 2015, Complainant was advised by a

representative of LJAP to file a Request for Investigation.

49. Without notice to his clients, Respondent has abandoned his client

matters.


50. By reason of the conduct described above in Count Three of this Formal



{00326256.DOCX}

a) Neglected legal matters entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC

1.1(c);

b) Failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in

representing clients, in violation of MRPC 1.3;

c) Failed to communicate with clients, in violation of MRPC 1.4 (a);

d) Engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of


e) Engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the court


9.104(2); and

f) Engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or


Count Four

(Carrie Atkinson: RI 1705-15)


51. On or about May 22, 2014, Complainant, Carrie Atkinson retained

Respondent to handle a divorce action and bankruptcy matter.

52. Complainant paid Respondent $1,770.00 for the divorce action and $1,

700.00 for the bankruptcy action.

53. Complainant provided Respondent with original documents critical to both

matters.

54. Respondent provided Complainant with a draft complaint for divorce but

failed to file the pleading with the court.

{00326256.DOCX}

55. Respondent failed to file any pleadings in the bankruptcy matter.

56. Complainant attempted but was unsuccessful in reaching the Respondent

after July 2014.

57. Complainant requested the return of her original documents and funds

paid for representation.

58. Respondent failed to return Complainant’s original documents and the

funds paid for representation.


59. By reason of the conduct described above in Count Four of this Formal



a) Neglected legal matters entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC

1.1(c);

b) Failed to seek the lawful objectives of the client, through reasonably

available means permitted by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2 (a);

c) Failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in

representing clients, in violation of MRPC 1.3;

d) Failed to communicate with clients, in violation of MRPC 1.4 (a);

e) Failed to return the unearned portion of the advance payment of

fee, in violation of MRPC 1.16 (d);

f) Failed to surrender papers and property to which the client is

entitled, in violation of MRPC 1.16 (d);

{00326256.DOCX}

g) Engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of


h) Engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the court


9.104(2); and

i) Engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or


Count Five

(Failure to Answer)


60. The following four separate Requests for Investigation were served on

Respondent at his address of record with the State Bar of Michigan in accordance with

MCR 9.112(C)(1)(b):

AGC File No. Filed By Date Served

0309-15 Ellen Paynter 02/24/15

0328-15 Lauren Fibel 02/25/15

0368-15 Kathy Kennedy 03/04/15

1705-15 Carrie Atkinson 09/24/15

61. Respondent failed to answer the Requests for Investigation within 21 days

of service, as required by MCR 9.113(A).

62. Final Notices with a copy of the Request for Investigation enclosed were

served on Respondent, by certified mail, return receipt requested, advising him that

{00326256.DOCX}

failure to answer by a date certain would subject him to formal charges of misconduct,

as follows:

File No. Date Final Notice Served Due Date

0309-15 03/25/15 04/14/15

0328-15 03/25/15 04/04/15

0368-15 04/06/15 04/16/15

1705-15 10/21/15 10/31/15

63. The Final Notices for RI File Nos. 0309-15 and 0328-15 were signed by

Respondent and dated “March 30, 2015” upon delivery.

64. On or about April 30, 2015, Petitioner’s staff contacted Respondent by

telephone and left a voicemail message regarding his pending files.

65. Respondent did not reply to the aforementioned voicemail.

66. On or about May 1, 2015, Petitioner’s staff sent an e-mail to Respondent

at his e-mail address on file with the State Bar regarding his pending files.

67. Respondent did not reply to the aforementioned e-mail.

68. On or about March 25, 2015, Final Notices, with a copy of the Requests

for Investigation identified in Paragraph 51 of this Formal Complaint were mailed to

Respondent at the following alternate addresses located by Petitioner’s investigator:

a) 1512 Trentwood Street SW, Grand Rapids, MI 48220

b) P. O. Box 9833, Wyoming, MI 49509

c) 8685 Highland Road, White Lake, MI 48386

{00326256.DOCX}

69. The return receipt green cards for the Final Notice regarding RI File Nos.

0309-15 and 0328-15 sent to one of the alternative addresses were signed “Johnathon”

upon delivery.

70. On or about April 9, 2015, the return receipt green card for the Final Notice

regarding RI File No. 0368-15 was signed “J. Green” upon delivery.

71. The return receipt green card for the Final Notice regarding RI File No.

0368-15 sent to one of the alternative addresses was signed “Johnathon” and dated

“April 14, 2015” upon delivery.

72. On or about June 17, 2015, Petitioner subpoenaed Respondent to appear

for purposes of taking a statement under oath.

73. On or about July 9, 2015, Respondent failed to appear for the statement

under oath.

74. To date, Respondent has not answered the Requests for Investigation.


75. By reason of the conduct described above in Count Five of this Formal



a) Knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from

a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2);

{00326256.DOCX}

b) Failed to answer a Request for Investigation, in violation of MCR

9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2);

c) Engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of


d) Engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the court


9.104(2); and

e) Engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or


Wherefore, Petitioner respectfully requests that Respondent be subjected to such

discipline as may be warranted by the facts or circumstances of such misconduct,

including any restitution owed.

Dated: April ___, 2016

_____________________________Alan M. Gershel (P29652)Grievance AdministratorAttorney Grievance Commission535 Griswold, Suite 1700Detroit, MI 48226313-961-6585

{00326256.DOCX}

DRAFT Amended Complaint … · Web viewPetitioner, Grievance Administrator, is authorized by MCR...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT Amended Complaint … · Web viewPetitioner, Grievance Administrator, is authorized by MCR...