State of Michigan 2018 HAY -4 PM 3: 22

Attorney Discipline Board

Grievance Administrator,
Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission,
case No. 18-49-GA
Petitioner,

Ralph Wendell Kimble II, P64054,

Respondent.
--------------------------~/

Formal Complaint

(Parties and Jurisdiction)

1. Petitioner, Grievance Administrator, is authorized by MCR 9.109(B)(6) to

prosecute this Formal Complaint by the Attorney Grievance Commission, which is the prosecution

arm of the Supreme Court for the discharge of its constitutional responsibility to supervise and

discipline Michigan attorneys.

2. As a licensed Michigan attorney, Respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court and the Attorney Discipline Board as set forth in MCR 9.104.

3. Michigan attorneys have a duty to conduct themselves personally and

professionally at all times in conformity with the standards imposed on members of the bar as a

condition of the privilege to practice law.

4. Respondent is a Michigan attorney who was licensed in June 2002 and who resides

or has his place of business in Branch County, State of Michigan.

5. At all times relevant to this Formal Complaint, Respondent has been the Branch
County Prosecutor, beginning in January 2013.

Count One
(Factual Allegations)

6. Witness 1 (a female) has been employed with Branch County for 17 years and for

8 of those years has worked for one of the Branch County judges.

7. Respondent began sexually harassing Witness 1 in around 2007 to 2009, when she

worked as a court reporter.

8. Specifically, Respondent told Witness 1 that she was "really doing things" to him,

that his "little Ralphie" (meaning his penis) was "getting excited right now" and pointed to his

genital area.

9. Respondent also told Witness 1 that if he was going to cheat on his wife, it would

be with her.

10. On another occasion, Respondent walked in Witness 1's office, dropped five

hundred dollars onto her lap, and told her it was to purchase a plane ticket to go to Las Vegas with

him. Witness 1 handed the money back to Respondent.

11. On another occasion, Respondent offered $50 to Witness 1 for her panties because

they would have her scent on them.

12. In or around the spring/summer of2014, Respondent walked in Witness 1's office,

sat down, and told her that he had a sex dream about her. Respondent stated that she was a "wild

sex machine," that it was "so great," that she was "riding [him] like a porn star, and that her "pussy

was so good." Respondent told Witness 1 that he had to "jack off' and that he "squirted all over

[her] back while she was sitting there." Witness 1 was greatly embarrassed and began to cry.

Respondent then told Witness 1, "Look at me. Little Ralphie'sjust coming up" and he pointed to

2
his penis. Respondent covered his erection with a court file and stated that he had to "calm down."

13. Approximately six months later, Respondent walked in to Witness 1's office and

asked her what was wrong. Witness 1 stated that she had a headache and believed it was caused

by a pinch in her neck. Respondent touched Witness 1's neck and asked, "Right here?" Witness

1 replied affirmatively. Respondent then slid his hand down the middle of her back to her bra line,

to which Witness 1 stated that it was her neck. Respondent then slid his hand down the back of

her pants and grabbed her buttocks. Respondent commented about her panties stating that all he

saw was "lace and black."

14. Approximately three or four months later, as Witness 1 entered an elevator at the

courthouse, Respondent entered the elevator behind her. Respondent commented on Witness 1's

appearance and stated that he was getting excited. Respondent grabbed her hand and placed it on

him so that she could feel he had an erection. Respondent asked if she could feel it and Witness 1

quickly pulled her hand away.

15. In the spring of2017, the judges of Branch County formed a panel to initiate review

of various concerns expressed by Witness 1 and others regarding Respondent's behavior.

16. The concerns had been expressed to a judge or other court employee and centered

on allegations of inappropriate and unwanted verbal and physical interaction initiated by

Respondent toward numerous female employees.

17. The judicial panel interviewed employees and others who had reported to a judge

or others instances as stated in paragraph 16.

18. The judicial panel consisted of Judge Brent Weigle (3A District Court), Judge P.

William O'Grady (Branch County Circuit Court), Judge Kirk Kashian (Branch County Probate

Court), Magistrate/Judge David Coyle, and Juvenile Referee John Howard.

3
 19. As a result of the investigation conducted and findings made by the judicial panel,

on February 22, 2018, Judge Kashian, Judge O'Grady, Judge Weigle, and Judge Coyle signed an

order restricting Respondent's movements and access to the courts. (Appendix A.)

(Grounds for Discipline)

20. By reason of the conduct described above in Count One of this Formal Complaint,

Respondent has committed the following misconduct and is subject to discipline under MCR 9.104

as follows:

a) engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law, that being

MCL 750.520e (fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct), in

violation ofMCR 9.104(5);

b) engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the

courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in

violation ofMCR 9.104(2);

c) engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics,

honesty, or good morals, in violation ofMCR 9.104(3);

d) engaged in conduct involving violation of the criminal law

where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer's

honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation

of MRPC 8.4(b); and,

e) failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved

in the legal process and failing to take particular care to avoid

treating such a person discourteously because of a person's

race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic, in

4
 violation ofMRPC 6.5(a).

Count Two
(Factual Allegations)

21. Witness 2 (a female) worked in the Branch County Prosecutor's office from 2000

until2017.

22. Approximately six months after Respondent became the Branch County Prosecutor

(in 2012), he talked about his sex life to employees in the office.

23. Respondent told Witness 2 that he liked to stand by the security desk and look at

her breasts.

24. Respondent began to hold "Friday Cookouts" in the warmer months of 2013. At

the cookouts, Respondent talked about getting "blow jobs" and having sex with women.

25. In or around 2013, Respondent called Witness 2 on her cell phone and asked her if

she and her husband had sex, if it hurt, if she was "dry down there", and whether she used aids to

help her so it did not hurt.

26. Witness 2's husband became seriously ill in 2015, and Respondent would often rub

her arm and back and ask if she was ready to have an affair.

27. Witness 2's husband died in July 2015. Shortly after her husband's death,

Respondent walked into her office, rubbed her arm, and asked if she was ready to have an affair

with him.

28. On numerous occasions, Respondent would talk about the size of his penis to

Witness 2.

29. When Witness 2's daughter or daughter-in-law were in the office, Respondent

would say to Witness 2 that they made him hot, that he wanted to have a sandwich with them, and

he asked whether they thought he was a dirty old man, or he would call them a "bitch."

5
 (Grounds for Discipline)

30. By reason of the conduct described above in Count Two ofthis Formal Complaint,

Respondent has committed the following misconduct and is subject to discipline under MCR 9.104

as follows:

a) engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law, that being

MCL 750.520e (fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct), in

violation ofMCR 9.104(5);

b) engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the

courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in

violation of MCR 9.1 04(2);

c) engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics,

honesty, or good morals, in violation ofMCR 9.104(3);

d) engaged in conduct involving violation of the criminal law

where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer's

honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation

ofMRPC 8.4(b), and,

e) failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved

in the legal process and failing to take particular care to avoid

treating such a person discourteously because of a person's

race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic, in

violation ofMRPC 6.5(a).

6
 Count Three
(Factual Allegations)

31. Witness 3 (a female) has worked in various departments within the Branch County

courts for twenty-five years.

32. In approximately the summer of2016, Respondent and later Witness 2 walked into

Witness 3 's office. Respondent approached Witness 3 and began rubbing her right arm with the

back of his hand. Although Witness 3 brushed Respondent's hand away, he continued to rub her

arm. Respondent asked Witness 3, "Are you hot?" Witness 3 asked what Respondent meant by

that, to which he said, "Do I make you hot? It makes [Witness 2] hot."

33. On or about March 7, 2017, Witness 3 took a court file to the prosecutor's office.

Respondent came out of his office and asked Witness 3 if she had something she wanted to tell

him. Witness 3 responded she did not and asked Respondent what he was talking about.

Respondent stated, "You need to tell me you're happy I'm having twins" with another woman who

was not his wife. Witness 3 stated that she was not happy and that it was cruel and hurtful to

Respondent's wife. Respondent got very close to Witness 3, pointed his finger at Witness 3, and

screamed, "I'm so fucking sick of all you people. You're treating me like shit." Respondent further

stated that his wife was not a victim and that everyone should stay away from his wife and not talk

to her.

(Grounds for Discipline)

34. By reason of the conduct described above in Count Three of this Formal Complaint,

Respondent has committed the following misconduct and is subject to discipline under MCR 9.104

as follows:

a) engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the

courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in

7
 violation ofMCR 9.104(2);

b) engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics,

honesty, or good morals, in violation ofMCR 9.104(3); and,

c) failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved

in the legal process and failing to take particular care to avoid

treating such a person discourteously because of a person's

race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic, in

violation ofMRPC 6.5(a).

Count Four
(Factual Allegations)

35. Witness 4 (a female) worked for the Branch County Circuit Court for more than

twenty years.

36. Respondent has, on several occasions, called Witness 4's daughter-in-law a "bitch"

when she rebuffed Respondent's advances.

37. On multiple occasions, Respondent would tell a story about his penis and how big

he was to staff in the Branch County Circuit Court.

38. On at least one occasion, Respondent, specifically referring to Witness 4, stated

that there was no use for overweight people.

39. In or around July of 2015, Witness 4 walked into Witness 2's office and heard

Respondent ask Witness 2, "Are you ready now?" Witness 4 saw Respondent stroke Witness 2's

arm, causing Witness 2 to become distressed and have tears in her eyes.

40. In or around September 2016, shortly before Witness 4's retirement and while she

was training her replacement (a female), Respondent walked into Witness 4's office and told the

8
replacement, "I want to have your babies."

(Grounds for Discipline)

41. By reason ofthe conduct described above in Count Four ofthis Formal Complaint,

Respondent has committed the following misconduct and is subject to discipline under MCR 9.104

as follows:

a) engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the

courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in

violation ofMCR 9.104(2);

b) engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics,

honesty, or good morals, in violation ofMCR 9.104(3); and,

c) failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved

in the legal process and failing to take particular care to avoid

treating such a person discourteously because of a person's

race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic, in

violation ofMRPC 6.5(a).

Count Five
(Factual Allegations)

42. Witness 5 (a female) has worked in the Branch County Prosecutor's office for 18

years.

43. In or around 2014, a defendant in a criminal case told the judge at sentencing that

Respondent "is coming on and trying to screw my woman." The woman referred to was the victim

in the matter.

44. Witness 5 had heard Respondent make sexual comments to the female victim.

9
 45. After the defendant made the comment to the judge, Respondent stated, "She's not

a goddamn victim, you hear me!" Respondent further stated about the victim that she should never

be allowed in the building again, that she is a "rat fucking whore," and that Respondent "wouldn't

do that cunt for nothing."

46. Witness 5, in response to Respondent's comments, reminded him that she was a

victim. Respondent told Witness 5, "I wouldn't do your hole either. I know what's been in there."

47. During Witness 5's employment in the Branch County Prosecutor's office,

Respondent has said to her: (a) "You look like you are in good shape." (b) "I like you not in a

creepy way." (c) "I'd do you, D." (d) "I'd do anybody up to 60."

48. During Witness 5's employment in the Branch County Prosecutor's office, Witness

5 heard Respondent say to Witness 2: (a) "Your daughter is a good fuck because she's dumb."

(b) "What would I want with wrinkly tits?" (c) made references to "herpes on the lips" and "herpes

down there."

49. During Witness 5's employment in the Branch County Prosecutor's office, she has

heard Respondent call a female employee a "cocksucker" and remark of another female employee

that she "had a dick under her skirt."

(Grounds for Discipline)

50. By reason of the conduct described above in Count Five of this Formal Complaint,

Respondent has committed the following misconduct and is subject to discipline under MCR 9.104

as follows:

a) engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the

courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in

violation ofMCR 9.104(2);

10
 b) engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics,

honesty, or good morals, in violation ofMCR 9.104(3); and,

c) failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved

in the legal process and failing to take particular care to avoid

treating such a person discourteously because of a person's

race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic, in

violation ofMRPC 6.5(a).

Count Six
(Factual Allegations)

51. Witness 6 (a female) worked in the Branch County Circuit Court from 2014 to 2016

and left her position because of Respondent's behavior and nothing was being done about his

behavior.

52. In early 2015, Witness 6 began a diet and was losing weight.

53. During the time that Witness 6 was on a weight reduction diet, Respondent began

commenting on her appearance and would state that she looked like a "pin up" or that it appeared

she had not taken a shower.

54. In or around 2015, Respondent also asked Witness 6 how her pubic hair was

trimmed, if she would "sext" with him, and he called her a "fucking bitch."

55. On one occasion in the attorney lounge, Respondent discussed using spit as a sexual

lubricant. When Witness 6 objected to his comment, Respondent responded, "Oh please, that

never happened to you."

(Grounds for Discipline)

56. By reason of the conduct described above in Count Six ofthis Formal Complaint,

11
Respondent has committed the following misconduct and is subject to discipline under MCR 9.104

as follows:

a) engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the

courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in

violation of MCR 9.1 04(2);

b) engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics,

honesty, or good morals, in violation ofMCR 9.104(3); and,

c) failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved

in the legal process and failing to take particular care to avoid

treating such a person discourteously because of a person's

race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic, in

violation ofMRPC 6.5(a).

Count Seven
(Factual Allegations)

57. Witness 7 (a female) works for the Branch County Friend of the Court.

58. On or about September 28,2017, at approximately 4:00p.m., Respondent appeared

in the lobby of the Friend of the Court office.

59. The receptionist asked Respondent if she could help him, to which he replied, "No."

60. Respondent glared at Witness 7, who was assisting a party, until Witness 7

interrupted her conversation and asked if Respondent needed something.

61. Through clenched teeth, Respondent stated that he had received a call from MiCES

that a complaint had been filed against his staff on a file, which he shook at Witness 7.

62. Witness 7 explained to Respondent that she was unsure what he was referring to

12
because she had not filed any complaints, but would speak with him when she was done with the

parties.

63. Respondent demanded to talk about the issue immediately and continued to escalate

his hostility.

64. Witness 7 then asked Respondent to leave because his behavior was unprofessional.

65. Respondent continued to behave in a threatening, intimidating, and domineering

manner, to the point that the FOC parties became uncomfortable and scared.

66. Witness 7 was forced to call her bench warrant officer and deputy to escort

Respondent from the lobby, which he refused to leave. Respondent stated that no one could do

anything to him and that no one had the authority to remove him from anywhere, and certainly not

the courthouse.

67. After several tense minutes, the two officers got Respondent to leave the office.

68. Due to Respondent's behavior, Witness 7 requested that a deputy escort her to her

car for her safety.

69. To further address the safety concerns expressed by the FOC staff, Witness 7 had a

new electronic deadbolt lock and entry buzzer installed the next day to ensure that Respondent did

not enter the office and pose a threat to the FOC staff.

(Grounds for Discipline)

70. By reason of the conduct described above in Count Seven of this Formal Complaint,

Respondent has committed the following misconduct and is subject to discipline under MCR 9.104

as follows:

a) engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the

courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in

13
 violation of MCR 9.1 04(2);

b) engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics,

honesty, or good morals, in violation ofMCR 9.104(3); and,

c) failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved

in the legal process, in violation ofMRPC 6.5(a).

Wherefore, Respondent should be subjected to such discipline as may be warranted by the

facts or circumstances of such misconduct.

Dated: May 3, 2018

Alan M. Gershel (P29652)

Grievance Administrator
Attorney Grievance Commission
535 Griswold St, Suite 1700
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 961-6585

14
 STATE OF MICIDGANIN THE 15TH CIRCUIT COURT, P-12 PROBATE COURT
AND THE 3-A DISTRICT COURT

P-12 PROBATE COURT } HONORABLE KIRK A. KASHIAN

} CHIEF JUDGE I PROBATE COURT JUDGE

15TH CIRCUIT COURT } HONORABLE P. WILLIAM O'GRADY

} CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

3-A DISTRICT COURT } HONORABLE BRENT R. WEIGLE

} DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3-A DISTRICT COURT } HONORABLE DAVID T. COYLE

} MAGISTRATE I DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

After a meeting of the Branch County judiciary, all courts being represented, it was unanimously
determined that the judiciary has an inherent right and statutory duty to protect the employees of the
various courts. It was further determined that it has become necessary to institute remedial measures in
order to protect those employees from inappropriate conduct on the part of Ralph Kimble 11, The
Prosecuting Attorney for Branch County. Accordingly, the following order is designed to limit the
movements of Mr. Kimble within the Branch County courthouse, while permitting him appropriate
access in order to allow him to carry out his statutory duties.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to MCR 8.110(C)(2)(C)that the Branch County Prosecuting

Attorney, Ralph Kimble II P# 64054, is hereby restricted in his movements and access to the courts as
follows:

Mr. Ralph Kimble II is restricted and absolutely barred from any area of the second floor judicial
corridor of the Branch County Courthouse and any area maintained, occupied or assigned to the Branch
County Circuit and District Courts except for the actual courtrooms or judicial chambers upon request of
the Court for matters with opposing counsel present and all lobbies/hallways otherwise open to the
general public.

Mr. Ralph Kimble II is restricted and absolutely barred from any area which is maintained,
occupied or assigned to the Branch County Friend of the Court.

Mr. Ralph Kimble II is hereby restricted and absolutely barred from any area maintained,
occupied or assigned to the Branch County Probate Court except for the actual courtrooms or judicial
chambers upon request of the Court for matters with opposing counsel present and all lobbies/hallways
otherwise open to the general public.

Mr. Ralph Kimble II shall have no contact with a female employee of the judiciary unless there is
a male employee or Sheriff's Deputy present to monitor such communications.
 The foregoing order will remain in full force and effect until such order is rescinded by the Chief
Judge.

Effective Date: 2 - 2-2. • 'B

Date: l · 2.. 2. - l 8

Approved by:

Date: z.-z..Z..-1$'

Hon. Brent R. Weigle P38888

District Judge- 3-A District Court

Date: 2_ - ;2_ .:;;_ _ 18"

Hon. David T. Coyle P12292,
Magistrate I District Judge - 3-A District Court
 FILED
State of Michigan AT fGHNEY OlSCIPliNE BOARD
Attorney Discipline Board
ltllMAY -1+ PH 3:22
Grievance Administrator,
Attorney Grievance Commission,

Petitioner, Case No. 18-49-GA

v

Ralph Wendell Kimble II, P64054,

Respondent.
________________________________/
Discovery Demand

As permitted by MCR 9.115(F)(4), Petitioner makes the following demand for discovery:

1) Copies of all documentary evidence to be introduced at the hearing, or access to such

documentary evidence so that it can be inspected and copied, in accordance with MCR

9.115(F)(4)(a); and,

2) The names and addresses of any persons to be called as witnesses at the hearing, in

accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(4)(a)(i).

Under MCR 9.115(F)(4)(c), your failure to comply timely with the above demands may

subject you to one or more of the sanctions set forth in MCR 2.313(B)(2)(a)-(c).

Dated: May 3, 2018

By:
Alan M. Gershel (P29652)
Grievance Administrator
Attorney Grievance Commission
535 Griswold St, Suite 1700
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 961-6585