Trustee Henry Baskin faces adultery accusation

By
Posted: Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 at 1:27 am | Last Updated: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 7:34 pm
View Comments Comments Print This Article Print This Email This Article Email This Tweet This Article Tweet This Add This Article to Delicious Delicious

UPDATE: All but one charge dropped against Trustee Henry Baskin

Henry Baskin, chairman of Oakland University’s Board of Trustees and prominent Detroit-area attorney, is under fire for allegedly having a sexual relationship with one of his former clients.

The Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, which investigates conduct-related inquires regarding attorneys of Michigan, filed charges against Baskin in April.

According to the Attorney Discipline Board’s formal complaint against him, Baskin allegedly “violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the supreme court” while representing a client from 1999 to 2004. Additionally, the complaint states that Baskin “engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals.”

Robert Edick, deputy administrator of the Attorney Grievance Commission, issued the formal complaint against Baskin on April 11 of this year.

In the complaint, Baskin is accused of committing adultery, a punishable criminal offense in the state of Michigan, although rarely enforced.

The complaint states that Baskin, while serving a female client throughout her divorce proceedings, had a sexual relationship with her. However, the felony of committing adultery has a one year statute of limitations in Michigan, so Baskin will not be subject to punishment as rendered by state law.

If found guilty, Baskin could still face consequences within the professional realm. According to Susan Evans, attorney and OU professor consequences could include a reprimand, a suspension or complete revocation of his law license, although a revocation would be unlikley.

The commision’s report also alleged that Baskin took advantage of his client while she was in a vulnerable state.

Baskin’s lawyer, Kenneth Mogill,  agreed with the grievance commission that it is improper for an attorney to take advantage of a client in any way. However, he believes Baskin did not. Mogill also denies that Baskin breached the standards of professional conduct. In fact, Mogill suggests that the complaint against Baskin brings forth important issue with the system itself.

“This case raises fundamental questions of fairness in the attorney disciplinary system,” Mogill said. “Substantively, the grievance commission is trying to change rules on what is permissible private personal conduct for an attorney, and that is not acceptable. Procedurally, they’re trying to ask individuals to recreate what did or did not occur over twelve years ago, and that is procedurally inappropriate as well.”

Despite Edick’s claim, Mogill said that the notion of Baskin being accused of adultery is both unfair and inaccurate.

“Michigan rules do not prohibit an attorney and client from developing a legitimate, intimate relationship,” Mogill said. “The commission is trying to change that retroactively.”

Mogill will make a motion to have the complaint dismissed by the Attorney Discipline Board this month. A legal committee will begin hearing information on the case during the month of October.

Ted Montgomery, OU’s media relations director, declined comment on the case, citing “This is a personal matter, it would be inappropriate for the university to comment.”

Robert Edick was unavailable for comment.

EMU


  • Jim A

    Henry Baskin is a hypocrite! In his career he has pursued attorneys and judges accused of similar “offenses” and has acted in a most sanctimonious manner in prosecuting these actions.

  • Mary

    This is such a joke. So obviously a jilted girlfriend. Can you say Glenn Close?

  • Jen

    Fatal attraction

  • Jean M.

    What an unfortunate witch hunt. If in fact there was a clear rule that an attorney may not have a sexual relationship with a client then it would have been stated clearly in this article. Instead they say the act is one that is “contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals.” Give me a break! It seems that the client won a good sum of money, so she sure got some justice. She apparently did not mind the relationship as she allowed it to occur so how can it be unethical (in other words, there does not appear to be an allegation of forced intercourse)? There is no mention of him being dishonest and “good morals” is a very debatable continuum which varies from person to person. The ancient Romans were having sex everywhere. Biologists would point out that men and women were designed to have sex with one another. Didn’t the Michigan Attorney General Cox also admit to having an extra-marital affair? Wasn’t he an attorney? Where was the witch hunt then? where was this “Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission”?…. This is ridiculous. Leave this man alone.