- 25 -
continued representation of her subsequent to her husband's death
amounted to fraud on the Court. Mr. Young was never notified
that he was representing Mrs. Dornbrock as her subagent rather
than as her agent; therefore, he could not have been expected to
assume that the death of Mr. Dornbrock would terminate his
authority to represent Mrs. Dornbrock. Mr. Young's continued
representation of Mrs. Dornbrock was clearly in her best interest
since she claims she had no knowledge of the proceedings and,
therefore, would not have had the opportunity to appoint new
counsel to represent her in this case. Mr. Young had a duty to
represent Mrs. Dornbrock to the best of his ability until he was
notified otherwise, a duty which he aptly fulfilled. On this
record, the Court is satisfied that Mr. Young filed the petition
as agent for both Mr. and Mrs. Dornbrock. There is no evidence
to support the contention that Mr. Dornbrock employed Mr. Young
to represent him alone and that Mr. Young represented Mrs.
Dornbrock in a subagency capacity. There were some 35 husbands
and wives who were joint petitioners in this case and to hold
that, as to this one couple, Mr. and Mrs. Dornbrock, there was
this special agent and subagent relationship, is simply
incredible. The Court does not buy that argument.
Mrs. Dornbrock contends that, under Michigan law, an
attorney-client relationship terminates upon the death of the
client, and the authority of the attorney to represent the
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011