Case Information
Attorney: Roger G. Cotner (P 36569)
Case No.: 25-083-GA
County: Ottawa
City: Grand Haven, Michigan
Discipline: Reprimand (By Consent)
Effective Date: January 27, 2026
Quick Facts
Who is the attorney?
Roger G. Cotner, P 36569, Grand Haven, Michigan.
What discipline was imposed?
A reprimand, by consent.
Why was discipline imposed?
Professional misconduct related to charging or attempting to collect fees far in excess of a written fee cap, including filing a lawsuit and recording a lien against a deceased client’s home.
Was the discipline contested?
No. The matter was resolved through a stipulated consent order.
Were costs assessed?
Yes. Costs of $762.14 were assessed.
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.
Applicable Court Rules
This matter proceeded under Michigan Court Rules and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorney fees, frivolous proceedings, and professional integrity, including:
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
- MRPC 1.5(a) – Illegal or clearly excessive fees
- MRPC 3.1 – Frivolous proceedings
- MRPC 8.4(a) – Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct
- MRPC 8.4(c) – Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
Michigan Court Rules
- MCR 9.115(F)(5) – Discipline by consent
- MCR 9.104(1)–(4) – Grounds for discipline
As with all attorney discipline matters, this action falls under Michigan Court Rules, Chapter 9, including the Attorney Discipline Board’s authority under MCR 9.115.
Underlying Conduct
Cotner and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, which was 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 and misconduct.
The admitted misconduct involved Cotner filing a lawsuit against a deceased client’s stepdaughter and subsequently recording a lien against the deceased client’s home seeking $6,545.58 in alleged fees.
The panel found this conduct occurred despite the existence of a written retainer agreement with the client, executed prior to the client’s death, that capped fees at $1,000.00.
Hearing Panel Findings
Based on Cotner’s admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the hearing panel found that Cotner committed professional misconduct by:
- Entering into, charging, or attempting to collect a clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a)
- Bringing a proceeding without a non-frivolous basis, in violation of MRPC 3.1
- Violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a)
- Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c)
- Engaging in conduct exposing the legal profession or courts to reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2)
- Engaging in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3)
- Engaging in conduct violating professional standards adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4)
Sanction
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the hearing panel ordered that Roger G. Cotner be reprimanded, effective January 27, 2026.
Costs were assessed in the amount of $762.14.
Why This Matters
This case highlights the strict limits Michigan places on attorney fee practices, particularly when a written agreement clearly caps compensation.
Attempting to recover fees beyond an agreed cap—especially through litigation and liens against a deceased client’s property—undermines trust in the attorney-client relationship and the administration of justice. Consent discipline in cases like this reinforces that fee agreements are binding and enforceable ethical obligations, not optional guidelines.
