That Plaintiff received a letter from Associate Counsel Nancy Albers, requestingadditional information relative to the allegations, even though the letter indicated thatPlaintiff had complied with their rules for submitting a Request For Investigation (seeExhibit “E” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference).
That even though Plaintiff had complied with the rules of the Administrator, he still,nonetheless, responded to the foregoing request for additional information on or aboutSeptember 11, 2007 by providing additional documentation and evidence which further demonstrated the misconduct of the aforementioned attorneys (See Exhibit “F” attachedhereto and incorporated herein by reference).
That the Attorney Grievance Commission failed, upon information and belief, to conducta fair and impartial preliminary investigation into the allegations of misconduct and/or failed to serve a copy of same on the respondent attorneys, outlined in the request for investigation and supporting documentation adduced in support of the request for investigation in contravention of MCR 9.112(C), and MCR 9.112(C)(1)(b).
That the Attorney Grievance Commission, upon information and belief, did not requirethe attorneys complained of to submit responses to the allegations contained in therequest for investigation as contemplated by MCR 9.113(A).
COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL