Attorney Grievance Defense Character and Fitness Representation

Transcription

1 58 Orders of Discipline and Disability Disbarment William F. Doran, P12900, Phoenix, Arizona, by the Attorney Discipline Board, effective December 5, The respondent was disbarred by the Supreme Court of Arizona, effective December 12, 2013, for conduct in violation of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. Pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(1), proof of the adjudication of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding in another state or a United States court is conclusive proof of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings in Michigan. This will result in comparable discipline being imposed under subchapter Attorney Grievance Defense Character and Fitness Representation of the Michigan Court Rules, unless it is established that the respondent was not afforded due process of law in the course of the original proceeding, or that the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan would be clearly inappropriate. On October 13, 2014, the respondent was ordered to show cause why he should not be subject to a reciprocal order of discipline in Michigan. Pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(2)(b), no objections were filed by either party in response and the respondent was found to be in default, with the same effect as a default in a civil action. The Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the Former Macomb County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney (24 years) and former Attorney Discipline Board Hearing Panel Chairperson (23 years) welcomes the opportunity to represent attorneys in disciplinary and grievance proceedings, and law school graduates in character and fitness hearings. Steven Kaplan, Attorney at Law Adjunct Law Professor, M.S.U. College of Law Law Offices of Rodnick, Unger & Kaplan, PC 3280 East 13 Mile Road Warren, MI Office (586) Cell (248) John L. Coté Attorney and Counselor to the Legal Profession SM Statewide Practice Well over 250 attorneys and many judges have relied on Jack Coté for competent and effective legal representation at all stages of disciplinary proceeding and counseling on ethical issues. Former chair (5 years) of Attorney Discipline Board. Served 7 years by Supreme Court appointment. Expert testimony on standard of care in legal malpractice cases. Experienced handling of Character and Fitness matters at all stages. Outstanding Attorney Award, from Ingham County Bar Association in memory of Leo A. Farhat for outstanding trial achievements Fountain View Circle, #3 Holland, MI Fax: or practice of law in Michigan, and that he pay costs in the amount of $1, the practice of law in Michigan since January 10, Please see notice of suspension, issued January 15, Disbarment and Restitution Brian Patrick Vincent, P73144, East Lan sing, by the Attorney Discipline Board, Ing ham County Hearing Panel #7, effective November 22, The panel issued an order of interim suspension of the respondent s license, effective September 16, 2014, based on his failure to appear at a hearing scheduled for September 4, The respondent was also found to be in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on the respondent s default, the hearing panel found that the respondent neglected six separate, unrelated legal matters, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to return unearned fees upon termination of the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in six separate, unrelated client matters, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); and failed to answer six requests for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2). The panel also found that the respondent engaged in conduct in violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, contrary to MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) and MCR 9.104(3); engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3). The hearing panel ordered the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan and that he pay restitution in

2 January 2015 Michigan Bar Journal Orders of Discipline and Disability 59 the aggregate amount of $9,575. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1, the practice of law in Michigan since September 16, Please see notice of interim suspension pursuant to MCR 9.115(H), issued September 26, Automatic Reinstatements James S. Franchek, P33542, Wayland, Massachusetts, effective November 24, practice of law in Michigan for 179 days, effective May 22, In ac cord ance with MCR 9.123(A), the suspension was terminated 24, Demetrio S. Timban, P69420, Medford, New Jersey, effective November 13, practice of law in Michigan for 175 days, effective November 30, In accordance with MCR 9.123(A), the suspension was terminated 13, Clifford Woodards II, P60661, Southfield, effective November 21, practice of law in Michigan for 90 days, effective May 16, In accordance with MCR 9.123(A), the suspension was terminated with the respondent s filing of an affidavit of compliance with the clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court on November 21, Automatic Reinstatement (Pending Appeal) John C. Lange, P39302, Southfield, effective November 24, The respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Michigan for 30 days, effective October 21, In accord ance with MCR 9.123(A), the suspension was terminated 24, Reprimand John W. Smith, P27465, Alpharetta, Geor - gia, by the Attorney Discipline Board, effective November 7, In a reciprocal discipline proceeding under MCR 9.120(C), the grievance administrator filed a petition for order to show cause accompanied by a certified copy of an order of reprimand that was issued and effective on May 29, 2014, reprimanding the respondent. (The Florida Bar v John Walter Smith, Case No. SC ; Lower Tribunal Nos ,881(15D); ,146(15D); ,257(15D); ,742 (15D).) An order to show cause was served upon the respondent on August 12, The 21- day period referenced in MCR 9.120(C)(2)(b) expired without objection by either party and the respondent was deemed to be in default. Based on that default, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,500. Reprimand and Restitution (By Consent) Kimberly A. Kirchoff, P62870, Sandusky, by the Attorney Discipline Board, Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #2, effective December 3, plea of no contest to the rule violations, neglected a legal matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); and failed to act with reasonable diligence, in violation of MRPC 1.3. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and that she pay restitution in the amount of $2,000. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1, Reprimand (By Consent) Gary D. Hunley, P30132, Dearborn, County Hearing Panel #15, effective December 6, plea of no contest to the rule violations, held funds other than client or third-person funds in an IOLTA account, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); and deposited his own funds into the client trust account in excess of an amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution charges or fees or to obtain a waiver of service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f). The panel also found that the respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(2) (4). Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and assessed costs in the amount of $ Facilitations 39 Years Judicial Experience William J. Giovan 2015 Michigan Leading Lawyer in ADR Law (313) giovan@cgblegal.com

3 60 Orders of Discipline and Disability defending drinking drivers Winning dui arguments and techniques To challenge probable cause, keep the prosecution s evidence out, or file effective motions, you must have a well-prepared case. From initial client contact to sentencing, Defending Drinking Drivers will guide you through every phase of a drinking driving trial. SAVE 15% with coupon code The book begins with the nuts & bolts of drunk driving defense, then focuses on teaching how to create reasonable doubt. Particular attention is given to analyzing specific testing methods and handling expert witnesses. This two-volume set offers court-tested strategy, practice tips, sample arguments and the most up-to-date case law and statutory changes to keep you on the cutting edge of drunk driving law. Practical, step-by-step guidance helps you: $149 $ with code MBJ15 MBJ15 Identify sources of error in BAC calculations Successfully attack damaging chemical test results Effectively cross-examine the prosecution s key witnesses Find weaknesses in the use of field sobriety tests Suppress audiovisual evidence Know when and how to use experts cost-effectively author: patrick t. barone Patrick T. Barone has an AV (highest) rating from Martindale- Hubbell, and since 2009 has been included in the highly selective U.S. News & World Report s America s Best Lawyers, while the Barone Defense Firm appears in their companion America s Best Law Firms. He has been rated Seriously Outstanding by Super Lawyers, rated Outstanding/10.0 by AVVO, and has recently been rated as among the top 5 percent of Michigan s lawyers by Leading Lawyers magazine. Mr. Barone is the principal and founding member of The Barone Defense Firm, whose practice is limited exclusively to DUI cases including those involving injury or death. To purchase your copy of Patrick Barone s guide to winning DUI arguments, go to: jamespublishing.com/shop/defending-drinking-drivers/... With offices in Birmingham and Grand Rapids, The Barone Defense Firm accepts referrals from throughout Michigan. Call Reprimand With Conditions (By Consent) Todd Zachary, P55660, Birmingham, by the Attorney Discipline Board, Tri-County Hearing Panel #59, effective November 8, plea of no contest, the hearing panel found that the respondent neglected three legal matters, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3; and failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a). The panel also found that the respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (c); and MCR 9.104(1) (4). In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and be subject to conditions relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $ Final Suspension and Restitution Robert Joseph Payne, P69779, Lansing, by the Attorney Discipline Board, Ing ham County Hearing Panel #3, for one year, effective December 2, The respondent did not appear at the hearing and was found to be in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on the respondent s default, neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek his client s lawful objectives through reasonably available means permitted by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to adequately communicate with his client, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) and (b); failed to refund an unearned fee upon termination of the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); and failed to answer a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(B)(2).

4 January 2015 Michigan Bar Journal Orders of Discipline and Disability 61 The panel further found that the respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (c); and MCR 9.104(1) (4). The panel ordered that the respondent s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for one year and that he pay restitution in the amount of $250. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1, The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since March 12, Please see notice of suspension and restitution, issued March 14, Final Suspension Daniel L. Mercier, P72620, Troy, by the Attorney Discipline Board, reducing discipline from disbarment to a three-year suspension, effective April 15, Based on the respondent s admissions in his answer to the first amended complaint and his answers placed on the record, the hearing panel found that the respondent had failed, as an applicant for admission to the bar, to inform the standing committee on character and fitness, in writing, that his answers in his affidavit of personal history had changed and/or ceased to be true, in violation of MRPC 8.1(b)(2); violated or attempted to violate the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, contrary to MRPC 8.4(a); and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or 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). The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan, effective February 13, The respondent filed a petition for review, along with a request for a temporary stay of discipline. On February 11, 2013, the Attorney Discipline Board granted the respondent s request for a temporary stay of discipline and ordered that the respondent s disbarment would go into effect on April 15, On March 28, 2013, the respondent filed a motion for final stay of discipline, which was denied by the Attorney Discipline Board on April 4, 2013, and the respondent s disbarment became effective on April 15, The matter was scheduled for review and, upon review, the Attorney Discipline Board issued an order on April 3, 2014, reducing the discipline from a disbarment 4000 Town Center, Suite 909 Southfield, Michigan Phone: Reputation Matters Donald D. Campbell A Lawyer for Lawyers donald.campbell@ceflawyers.com Named 2014 Lawyer of the Year by The Best Lawyers in America for ethics and professional responsibility law 10 years of service with the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission Adjunct ethics professor since 2002 Liaison to the American Bar Association s ethics committee An attorney s reputation is her most valuable possession. Sixth Circuit in United States v Llanez-Garcia Claims Against Stockbrokers ANTHONY TROGAN, ESQ. 35 YEARS EXPERIENCE avtrogan@aol.com MONEY JUDGMENT INTEREST RATE MCL governs how to calculate the interest on a money judgment in a Michigan state court. Interest is calculated at six-month intervals on January and July of each year, from when the complaint was filed, and is compounded annually. For a complaint filed after December 31, 1986, the rate as of July 1, 2014 is percent. This rate includes the statutory 1 percent. But a different rule applies for a complaint filed after June 30, 2002 that is based on a written instrument with its own specified interest rate. The rate is the lesser of: (1) 13 percent a year, compounded an nually; or (2) the specified rate, if it is fixed or if it is variable, the variable rate when the complaint was filed if that rate was legal. For past rates, see other/interest.pdf. As the application of MCL varies depending on the circumstances, you should review the statute carefully.

5 62 Orders of Discipline and Disability to a three-year suspension. On May 1, 2014, the respondent filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied on October 28, Total costs were assessed in the amount of $3, the practice of law in Michigan since April 15, Please see notice of disbarment (pending appeal), issued on June 18, Automatic Suspension for Nonpayment of Costs Todd Zachary, P55660, Birmingham, effective November 21, The respondent was ordered to pay costs by Tri-County Hearing Panel #59 in Grievance Administrator v Todd Zachary, Case No GA. The respondent has failed to pay the costs as ordered. In accordance with MCR 9.128(D), the respondent s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended on September 21, 2014, and will remain suspended until the costs have been paid and the respondent has complied with MCR and MCR 9.123(A). Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) David B. Tamsen, P32688, Allen Park, County Hearing Panel #9, effective September 22, After being properly served with the formal complaint and the notice of hearing, the respondent failed to personally appear at the September 15, 2014 hearing. After satisfactory proofs were entered that the respondent possessed actual notice of the proceedings, the hearing panel, in accordance with MCR 9.115(H)(1), determined that the respondent s failure to appear warranted an interim suspension from the practice of law until further order of the panel. On September 15, 2014, the panel issued an order of suspension pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), effective September 22, 2014, and until further order of the panel or the Board. Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(2) George Cushingberry Jr., P49657, Detroit, County Hearing Panel #1, effective December 11, In accordance with MCR 9.115(H)(2), the hearing panel determined that the respondent s claim of physical incapacity as the reason for his inability to appear at a hearing scheduled for December 11, 2014, warranted an interim suspension from the practice of law until further order of the panel. The panel issued an order of interim suspension of the respondent s license, effective December 11, Experienced attorney (38 yrs) who handles criminal and civil cases, trial and appeal, is available for representation in defending attorneys in discipline proceedings. I can represent you in answering requests for investigations, grievances, and at hearings. I am also available for appeals, reinstatement petitions, and general consultation. References are available upon request. For further information, contact: LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. LOEB Northwestern Hwy, Ste 170 Farmington Hills, MI (248) Fax (248) tmloeb@mich.com Veteran trial and appellate attorneys, experienced in defending attorneys in discipline and contempt proceedings Representation in grievances, answers to requests for investigation, hearings, appeals, reinstatement petitions, ethics consultations and character and fitness proceedings KENNETH M. MOGILL ERICA N. LEMANSKI 27 E. Flint St., 2nd Floor Lake Orion, MI (248) CAROLE M. STANYAR 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI (313) Suspension (With Condition) Eric L. Naslund, P42648, Sylvan Lake, by the Attorney Discipline Board, Tri-County Hearing Panel #62, for 179 days, effective November 1, The respondent filed an answer to the complaint and appeared at the hearing. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent held funds other than client or third-person funds in an IOLTA account, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); failed to hold property of clients or third persons separate from his own, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); and engaged in conduct in violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, contrary to MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4). The panel acknowledged that the grievance administrator had no evidence that the respondent improperly used, converted, or misappropriated any client funds. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent s license to practice law be suspended for 179 days, effective November 1, 2014, and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,