|
|
Issued by the Attorney Discipline Board 211 W. Fort St., Ste. 1410, Detroit, MI Tri-County Hearing Panel #78 entered an order of probation under MCR 9.121(C) for a period...
Concepts: | Attorney Discipline Board ; hearing panel ; respondent ; probation ; Supreme Court ; Grievance Administrator ; amount ; accordance |
Type: | Board Order |
|
|
|
Following an emotionallychargedcourtroomconfrontation with the opposingparty in a civil case, respondent used his cell phone to call the opposing party, a lawyer. However,...
Concepts: | respondent ; hearing panels ; probation ; public interest ; Grievance Administrator ; ofprobation ; eligibility ; lawyer ; party ; civility ; practicing law ; recorded message ; ofrespondent ; suspensions ; Discipline Board ; evidence |
Type: | Opinion |
|
|
|
Effective March 13, 2010 In his answer to the formal complaint, respondent pleaded no contest to the allegations of misconduct in the formal complaint and asserted MCR...
Concepts: | hearing panel ; respondent ; formal complaint ; statement of material ; Michigan Rules ; motion ; Discipline Board ; probation ; administration ; Total costs ; practice law ; criminal laws ; allegations of misconduct ; reconsideration |
Type: | Notice |
City: | Southfield |
County: | Oakland |
|
|
|
Reinstated Effective May 23, 2011 Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective March 13, 2010. His petition for reinstatement,...
Concepts: | petitioner ; reinstatement ; panel ; eligibility ; accordance ; law ; interim reinstatementto ; State Bar ; court rules |
Type: | Notice |
City: | Birmingham |
County: | Oakland |
|
|
|
Reinstated Effective May 23,2011 Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective March 13,2010. His petition for reinstatement,...
Concepts: | reinstatement ; practice of law ; panel ; petitioner ; eligibility ; accordance ; State Bar ; court rules |
Type: | Notice |
City: | Birmingham |
County: | Oakland |
|
|
|
The Grievance Administrator filed a two-count formal complaint against respondent on This interlocutory petition for review involves only Count Two, which alleges responden...
Concepts: | Grievance Administrator ; formal complaint ; respondent ; ex parte ; neutral arbitrator ; dispute resolution ; courts ; lawyers ; ethics committee ; nominating party ; Law Governing ; plain meaning ; misconduct ; Restatement ; allegations ; litigation |
Type: | Opinion |
City: | Southfield |
County: | Oakland |
|
|
|
On February 5, 2021, Tri-County Hearing Panel #53 entered an Order Denying Motion for Partial Summary Disposition. On February 19, 2021, respondent filed a petition for...
Concepts: | hearing panel ; Partial Summary Disposition ; respondent ; Denying ; interlocutory review ; Board members ; Alan Gershel ; Williams Forney ; accompanying opinion |
Type: | Board Order |
City: | Southfield |
County: | Oakland |
|
|
|
Reprimand, Effective April 28, 2022 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), that was...
Concepts: | hearing panel ; respondent ; stipulation ; arbitration ; parte communications ; professional misconduct ; Grievance Commission ; amount |
Type: | Notice |
City: | Southfield |
County: | Oakland |
|
|
|
|