The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has issued a reprimand against Charles G. Goedert (P39645) of Kalkaska, Michigan, effective August 27, 2025, following consent discipline proceedings.
The reprimand was imposed pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 9.115, which governs attorney discipline proceedings.
Background: Consent Discipline
According to the notice, Goedert and the Grievance Administrator entered into a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline under MCR 9.115(F)(5). The stipulation was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Emmet County Hearing Panel #1.
Goedert entered no contest pleas to specified factual allegations in the formal complaint and to an allegation of professional misconduct arising from events following appellate review of a case in which he was involved.
Other counts and allegations were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.
Misconduct Findings
Based on the no contest pleas and the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel found that Goedert committed misconduct when, after being overruled and disqualified by a higher court, he sent a critical letter to the appellate judge.
The panel concluded that this conduct constituted initiating, permitting, or considering ex parte communications or other communications made to a judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding, in violation of Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct 3A(4).
Panel Order and Sanctions
In accordance with the stipulation, the panel ordered that:
- Goedert be reprimanded, effective August 27, 2025.
- Goedert pay costs in the amount of $1,148.28.
No suspension was imposed.
What This Means
The prohibition on ex parte communications is a core safeguard of judicial impartiality. Communications directed at judges outside the presence of the parties, particularly following adverse rulings, undermine the integrity of the appellate process and can result in public discipline even when resolved by consent.
This case illustrates how conduct directed toward the judiciary, rather than toward clients, can still trigger attorney discipline.
