Michigan Attorney Discipline Board Dismisses Charges Against Matthew DePerno

The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board dismissed two misconduct charges against Portage attorney Matthew DePerno on May 11. The ruling concerns DePerno’s representation of former state Rep. Todd Courser. While two counts were dropped, a third remains, highlighting the ongoing volatility of professional liability in high-stakes political litigation.

For any professional service firm, the line between “aggressive advocacy” and “professional misconduct” is not just a legal distinction—it is a fiscal one. When a practitioner faces disciplinary action, the risk profile of their entire practice shifts. The cost of defense, the potential for sanctions, and the erosion of brand equity create a cascade of liability that can destabilize a firm’s valuation. This specific case serves as a case study in the asymmetric risk associated with high-profile political representation.

The volatility of such cases often forces mid-sized firms to rethink their exposure, leading them to seek out professional liability insurance providers capable of underwriting high-risk litigation portfolios. Without a robust indemnity structure, a single disciplinary hearing can transform a profitable practice into a liability center.

The May 11 Ruling: A Partial Victory in Risk Mitigation

The decision handed down by the Kalamazoo County panel of the discipline board on May 11 represents a significant, albeit incomplete, win for DePerno. By granting a motion for a directed verdict on two of the three misconduct charges, the board effectively removed a portion of the regulatory threat. These dismissed counts centered on a lawsuit DePerno filed in Washtenaw County against The Detroit News and one of its reporters, as well as a motion to disqualify the presiding judge.

The origins of the dispute trace back to 2015 and the representation of former state Rep. Todd Courser, a Lapeer Republican who resigned amid a sex scandal involving another former lawmaker, Cindy Gamrat. The 2023 complaint brought by the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission alleged a spectrum of violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, including the filing of frivolous lawsuits and the making of knowingly false statements.

From a corporate governance perspective, the “directed verdict” is the gold standard for early risk termination. It prevents the need for a full trial on those specific merits, reducing the billable hours spent on defense and limiting the public record of misconduct. However, the denial of the directed verdict on the third count ensures that the regulatory pressure remains active.

“This is about litigation conduct — hard-fought litigation, aggressive litigation,” DePerno argued before the board on May 11.

This defense highlights the central tension in the business of law: the demand for “aggressive” results versus the strictures of professional ethics. In the eyes of a client, aggression is a feature; in the eyes of a disciplinary board, it can be a bug that triggers a professional sanctions regime.

The Paradox of Aggressive Litigation and Brand Equity

In the high-stakes arena of political law, “aggressive litigation” is often the primary product being sold. However, when that aggression manifests as lawsuits against news organizations or motions to disqualify judges, the practitioner enters a zone of high regulatory friction. The Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission’s allegations of “deceitful conduct” and “frivolous” filings are not merely ethical critiques; they are attacks on the practitioner’s professional credibility.

When a lawyer’s brand becomes synonymous with “misconduct” rather than “victory,” the client acquisition cost typically rises, and the quality of the book of business often declines. This is where the intersection of law and business becomes most apparent. To maintain a sustainable practice under such scrutiny, many firms engage corporate compliance consultants to implement internal audits and ensure that their litigation strategies do not cross the threshold into sanctionable behavior.

The financial implications of the remaining charge cannot be ignored. Even a single sustained count of misconduct can lead to a range of penalties, from public reprimand to suspension. For a former candidate for attorney general, such a mark on the professional record is a form of intangible asset impairment. It complicates future political aspirations and can lead to the loss of institutional clients who have strict “morals clauses” or compliance requirements for their outside counsel.

Managing the Liability Tail in Professional Services

The DePerno case underscores a broader trend in the professional services sector: the increasing scrutiny of “litigation conduct.” As courts and disciplinary boards move toward a more stringent interpretation of the State Bar of Michigan standards and the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, the “aggressive” strategy is becoming a liability.

The fiscal problem here is the “long tail” of liability. A lawsuit filed in one year can result in a disciplinary complaint years later, creating a lingering risk that is difficult to quantify on a balance sheet. This unpredictability is why elite firms now rely on legal risk management firms to stress-test their filings and ensure that their advocacy does not create future regulatory headwinds.

The board’s decision to hold the May 11 hearing virtually and broadcast it via YouTube further amplifies the brand risk. In the digital age, the “court of public opinion” operates in real-time, often preceding the actual legal verdict. The transparency of the disciplinary process means that every argument—including the “hard-fought litigation” defense—is archived for future clients, opposing counsel, and regulators to analyze.

Market Trajectory: The Shift Toward Compliance-First Advocacy

The trajectory of the legal market is shifting away from the “scorched earth” approach toward a model of compliance-first advocacy. While the dismissal of two counts provides immediate relief, the persistence of the third charge serves as a reminder that the regulatory environment is not retreating.

For practitioners and firm owners, the lesson is clear: the cost of a “frivolous” filing is no longer just the court’s sanction; it is the potential for a systemic breakdown of professional standing. The ability to navigate the narrow corridor between zealous representation and ethical misconduct is now a core competency for any firm operating in the political or corporate sphere.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the winners will be those who treat ethics not as a hurdle, but as a risk-management strategy. Those who fail to calibrate their aggression with the current regulatory climate will find themselves spending more time before the Attorney Discipline Board than in the courtroom. For firms looking to insulate themselves from these risks, finding vetted B2B partners through the World Today News Directory is the most pragmatic step toward long-term stability.