|
In each case, the Grievance Administrator commenced the proceedings under MCR 9.120(B)(3) by filing a judgment of conviction showing that the respondent had been convicted...
| Concepts: | hearing panels ; trustworthiness ; conviction ; attorneys ; offenses ; disciplining ; impairment ; criminal law ; Supreme Court ; professional misconduct ; United States ; conclusive proof ; prosecutorial discretion ; construction ; disciplinary action ; interpretation |
| Type: | Opinion |
|
|
|
|
On remand from the Supreme Court, the hearing panel found that professional misconduct was conclusively established by the filing of the judgment of conviction. Upon...
| Concepts: | respondents ; Grievance Administrator ; motor vehicle ; offenses ; visibly impaired ; Deutch ; misdemeanor ; violation ; hearing panels ; alcohol level ; Supreme Court ; drunken drivers ; professional misconduct ; disciplinary proceedings ; aggravating effect ; practice of law |
| Type: | Opinion |
|
|
|
|
1. Discipline Order imposing No Discipline; 2. Effective July 9, 1999. Respondent was convicted in July, 1993, of the misdemeanor offense of operation of a motor vehicle...
| Concepts: | hearing panel ; discipline ; Supreme Court ; offense ; Grievance Administrator ; Howell ; Deutch ; mitigating ; professional misconduct ; visibly impaired ; notions of justice ; consideration of the nature ; filing of the judgment of conviction |
| Type: | Notice |
| City: | Southfield |
| County: | Oakland |
|
|
|
|
three separate hearing panels declining to impose discipline based upon an attorney's conviction of the offense of impaired driving. In accordance with that subrule, the...
| Concepts: | hearing panels ; convictions ; respondents ; moral turpitude ; offenses ; disciplining ; attorneys ; impairment ; professional misconduct ; law ; subchapter ; conflicting ; construction ; commission ; mitigation ; predecessor |
| Type: | Opinion |
|
|