UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN RE: ANDREW A. PATERSON, JR.
Administrative Order
/ No. 20-AD-053
The Magistrate Judge has referred Attorney Andrew A. Paterson, Jr. to the undersigned
under L.Gen.R. 2.3(d) for consideration of possible discipline or disciplinary proceedings. The
referral comes in a Report and Recommendation on a series of discovery and sanctions motions in
Blackwell v. Simon, Case No. 1:18-cv-1261, ECF No. 234, at PageID.3027 (March 20, 2020). The
District Judge assigned to the case rejected objections to the Report and Recommendation, and
adopted it as her own. ECF No. 314 (May 20, 2020). Attorney Paterson is no longer counsel of
record on the case, or on any other matter in this District.
The referral in the Report and Recommendation includes a detailed and carefully
documented history of litigation conduct warranting sanctions in the Blackwell case itself. It also
provides citation to and analysis of several other state and federal cases in which Attorney Paterson
has incurred some form of sanction for, or other negative judicial commentary on, his performance
as an attorney in the case. ECF No. 234, at PageID.3026-3029. 1 The common theme of all the
referenced cases, including this one, is a pattern of activity involving vexatious and frivolous
filings, outright misrepresentations of fact and other conduct far outside the normal bounds of
zealous advocacy.
No Court or litigant is obligated to tolerate the kind of inappropriate litigation conduct
detailed in these cases. But the Court is satisfied on the present record that the sanctions imposed
1 A number of the other cases all appear to arise out of a contentious and long running dispute involving
redevelopment of Centre Park Beer in Detroit. See, e.g., Lotus Indus. v. City of Detroit, No. 17-13482, 2018 WL
4005608 , at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2018).
by each respective Court, including this one, in the cited cases fully vindicates the disciplinary
interests at stake. In this case, for example, Attorney Paterson was removed as counsel in the case.
He incurred monetary penalties. And at least some of the claims he asserted were dismissed as
part of the overall sanction imposed. The other reported cases included similar targeted, but
significant, sanctions tied to particular litigation conduct in the particular case at issue.
The case specific sanctions are, in the view of the undersigned, the best way of vindicating
the disciplinary interests involved when the wrongful conduct involves the particulars of the
individual case. The record of the case in this Court fully supports the sanctions recommended
and imposed by the assigned Judicial Officers in the case. They vindicate the Court’s interest in
enforcing the rules and orders of the Court, and the standards of ethical conduct for an advocate.
They also provide appropriate and balanced redress for the most directly affected litigants. True,
they do not prevent Attorney Paterson from engaging in another unwarranted course of
inappropriate behavior in some other case. However, there is nothing of record that suggests he
misbehaves in every case, or even in most of his cases. And in the cases where he does, each
tribunal has demonstrated its ability to respond with appropriate sanctions. Moreover, Attorney
Paterson practices in an area fraught with potential for political conflict. See, e.g., Carmack v. City
of Detroit, No. 18-cv-11018, 2019 WL 4670363, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 25, 2019). This is no
excuse for violating the rules that put the limits on the bounds of zealous advocacy. Id. But it does
reinforce the undersigned’s preference to address sanctions, when needed, in a case specific
context rather than an ancillary administrative proceeding addressing possible suspension,
disbarment, or other more generalized discipline.
The undersigned does not believe consideration of possible additional sanctions, such as
suspension or disbarment from the bar of this Court, is warranted at this time. Attorney Paterson
is not currently counsel of record on any matter in this District. If and when he appears on another
matter, if he repeats his misbehavior, appropriate sanctions will no doubt be imposed within the
case. Another referral for more general discipline, including suspension or disbarment, may then
be warranted. See, e.g., In re Moncier, 550 F. Supp. 2d 768 (E.D. Tenn. 2008). But for now, the
undersigned is satisfied that no additional discipline or disciplinary proceedings are necessary.
Dated: July 30, 2020
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
