Narrative Opinion Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court, in an order dated September 24, 2012, denied the complaint for superintending control filed by plaintiff Stephanie L. Hammonds against the Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC). The Court found no persuasive grounds to grant the relief sought. Additionally, it confirmed that under Rule 19, Section 3(c) of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan, the AGC is entitled to receive a copy of the relevant report. Justice Hathaway did not participate in the decision due to a professional relationship with a member of a law firm involved in the case. The order was certified as a true and complete copy by Clerk Corbin R. Davis.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Superintending Controlsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Michigan Supreme Court denied the request for superintending control as there were no persuasive grounds presented to justify granting the relief sought by the plaintiff.
Reasoning: The Michigan Supreme Court, in an order dated September 24, 2012, denied the complaint for superintending control filed by plaintiff Stephanie L. Hammonds against the Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC). The Court found no persuasive grounds to grant the relief sought.
Entitlement of AGC to Reportssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court confirmed that the Attorney Grievance Commission is entitled to receive a copy of the relevant report as per the rules governing the State Bar of Michigan.
Reasoning: Additionally, it confirmed that under Rule 19, Section 3(c) of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan, the AGC is entitled to receive a copy of the relevant report.
Non-Participation Due to Conflict of Interestsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justice Hathaway did not participate in the decision due to a professional relationship with a member of a law firm involved in the case, highlighting the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest in judicial proceedings.
Reasoning: Justice Hathaway did not participate in the decision due to a professional relationship with a member of a law firm involved in the case.