——_,
DEPERNO
LAw OFFICE, PLLC
~~
MATTHEW S, DEPERNG, J.D. LL.M.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
951 W. MILHAM AVENUE
PO Box 1595
PorTace, MI 49081
April 7, 202
Michael P. Asheraft Pe
Plunkett Cooney
38505 Woodward Ave., Suite 100
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Re: Thomas L. Leonard, HT
Dear Mike:
Your office was first retained by my insurance provider (biBERK) to represent me in July
2020 regarding the MAGC sanction investigation in Todd Courser v Detroit News et al.
When insurance limits were reached, I retained Plunkett Cooney to continue representation.
As part of that representation, we have talked about other investigations and issues including
Skandis and Moffit.
In July 2021, I announced my candidacy for Michigan Attorney General for the Republican
party, In September 2021, Mr. Tom Leonard announced his candidacy for Michigan Attorney
General for the Republican party. Mr. Leonard is an attorney with Plunkett Cooney. On
October 21, 2021, I further retained Plunkett Cooney to represent me regarding the MAGC
investigation into the case of Bailey v Antrim County et al. As we have discussed, we both
agree that these investigations are complete nonsense; yet we were required to respond. In
both cases, Plunkett Cooney has submitted responses stating that I have not violated any
ethical rules and that my conduct complied with the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct.
On March 25, 2022, Mr. Leonard starting attacking me verbally and in writing related to the
Antrim case and Courser case. We both know the political climate I face regarding the
MAGC. Indeed, you have stated that both the Antrim and Courser investigations were
iated by Michael Goetz, as Grievance Administrator, rather than any individual
complainant (or at least we don't presently know the complainant). The working theory has
been that Mr. Goetz read news articles about me and decided to open investigations. Mr.
Leonard knows, or should know, that his statements about me are false. Nevertheless, it
appears that his comments include information about investigations he should not discuss, in
violation of MRPC 1.6. Under no circumstance should one of my lawyers publicly attack me,
regardless of whether the information is false. Further, he knows that (as a client) I have nointerest in making these investigations public; yet he has publicly called on me to release
information, making them public. This is an egregious violation of the standard and duty of
care.
At this time, I have several issues:
1. As we discussed last week, I talked to Nathan Pitluck and he stated that the Antrim
investigation was initiated by the Legislature. Mr. Leonard is the former Speaker of the
House. It appears he used his association with his elected friends in the Legislature to cause
the MAGC to investigate me (one of Plunkett Cooney's clients and therefore one of Mr.
Leonard's clients), for political reasons.
2. __ Ifit is true that the MAGC can simply investigate an attorney based on news articles,
then Mr. Leonard's comments about me (which are false) which have been publicized, put me
(as one of Mr. Leonard's clients) at risk. Apparently, Mr. Goetz simply has to read a news
article which includes Mr. Leonard's statements and use that article as justification for
opening an investigation.
Mr. Leonard owes me an apology. He also must make a public statement (verbally and in
writing) acknowledging his duty to me as a client of Plunkett Cooney. He must retract his
false allegations and allegations that put me at risk. It is time Plunkett Cooney conduct (1) an
investigation into the source of the Bailey MAGC investigation and (2) an investigation into
Mr. Leonard's present comments. During that time, Mr. Leonard should be placed on leave or
terminated.
2|Page