When Supervision Becomes Exposure: A Systems Audit of Probation Standard of Care in Michigan

Discipline Summary

The Attorney Discipline Board ordered a reprimand of Roger G. Cotner following stipulated findings of professional misconduct arising from his handling of fees after a client’s death. The discipline was imposed by consent and became effective January 27, 2026.

Underlying Conduct

Cotner and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #2. Under the stipulation, certain allegations in the formal complaint were dismissed while Cotner admitted to the remaining factual allegations. The admitted misconduct involved Cotner filing a lawsuit against a deceased client’s stepdaughter and recording a lien against the deceased client’s home seeking $6,545.58 in alleged fees — despite a written retainer agreement executed prior to the client’s death that capped fees at $1,000.

Hearing Panel Findings

Based on Cotner’s admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found violations across professional conduct and court rules: entering into, charging, or attempting to collect a clearly excessive fee (MRPC 1.5(a)); bringing a proceeding without a non-frivolous basis (MRPC 3.1); violating the Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC 8.4(a)); engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c)); engaging in conduct exposing the legal profession to reproach (MCR 9.104(2)); conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals (MCR 9.104(3)); and conduct violating professional standards adopted by the Supreme Court (MCR 9.104(4)).

Sanction

Reprimand effective January 27, 2026. Costs assessed: $762.14.

Why This Matters

This case illustrates that written fee agreements are binding ethical obligations, not optional guidelines. Attempting to recover fees beyond an agreed cap — particularly through litigation and liens against a deceased client’s estate — undermines both the attorney-client relationship and the administration of justice. Consent discipline in cases like this reinforces that the agreement governs, regardless of what additional work an attorney believes was performed.