When Your Attorney’s Record Doesn’t Match the Story You Were Told

The Documentation Problem Most Grievances Have

The Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission receives thousands of complaints annually. Many are dismissed at the inquiry stage — not because the conduct complained of did not occur, but because the complaint is organized around the client’s narrative of events rather than what the documentary record shows.

The AGC cannot subpoena documents at the inquiry stage. It cannot independently reconstruct a timeline from memory. What it can evaluate is the record placed in front of it. A complaint supported by a reconstructed timeline from primary sources — correspondence dated and sequenced, filings cross-referenced against billing records, conduct mapped to specific MRPC rule provisions — is a fundamentally different document than a narrative complaint organized around what the client remembers happening.

That gap is a forensic problem. It is addressable before the complaint is filed.

What the Record Review Actually Covers

The engagement begins with the full documentary record the client can provide: all attorney correspondence, email and written; the complete billing record; all filings the attorney prepared or submitted; any retainer agreements or engagement letters; and any documentation of communications the client received about case status or strategy. The record is organized chronologically, not thematically.

From that record, a timeline is reconstructed from what is actually documented — not from what either party says happened. The timeline maps where events in the client’s account are supported by documentation, where they are contradicted by documentation, and where the documentation shows gaps that are themselves significant.

Two Buyers, One Methodology

The same forensic record review serves two distinct client types whose needs run in opposite directions.

What This Is Not

This service does not constitute legal advice. Rita Williams is not an attorney. The engagement does not include drafting an AGC complaint, providing legal strategy, or representing any party in AGC proceedings.

What it produces is a documented evidentiary record — organized, sourced, and structured — that makes legal action by counsel possible. Malpractice counsel who receive a structured findings memo from a forensic review can make a representation decision from a sourced foundation rather than from a client narrative. The AGC, presented with a timeline reconstructed from primary sources and conduct mapped to specific MRPC provisions, is looking at a different type of submission than it typically receives.

The distinction between this service and legal advice is the distinction between organizing the record and interpreting the law. The former is forensic work. The latter requires a license.

Post-Dismissal Engagements

A significant percentage of AGC complaints are dismissed at inquiry without investigation. In some cases this reflects a complaint that was not organized around what the record shows. A post-dismissal record review can assess whether the underlying conduct is documentable in a way that supports reconsideration, whether a related civil malpractice action is viable, or whether escalation to the Attorney Discipline Board is appropriate.

Post-dismissal engagements begin with a Case Strategy Intensive at $250 to assess what the record contains before a deeper review is commissioned. If the record supports a deeper engagement, that conversation happens on a sourced basis rather than on the basis of outcome alone.