Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DER WIELE CHAIRPERSON REV. MICHAEL MURRAY VICE-CHAIRPERSON DULCE M. FULLER SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR.

STATE OF MIClflGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

211 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553 I FAX: 313-963-5571

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WENDY A. NEELEY DEPVTY DIRECTOR SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY

www.adbmlch.org

NOTICE OF DISBARMENT Case No. 16-53-GA Notice Issued: October 20,2016 Constance Y. Ross, P 28094, East LanSing, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #3.

1. Disbarred 2. Effective October 20, 2016 Respondent filed an answer to the formal complaint and appeared at the hearing which proceeded with a quorum of two panel members. Based on the evidence presented by the parties at the hearing held in this matter, the hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct in her fiduciary and legal responsibilities as attorney-in-fact for her clients in relation to a pourover revocable trust.

The panel found that respondent failed to promptly notify her client when funds or property was received, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b) (1); failed to preserve complete records of account funds for a period of five years after representation, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(2); failed to promptly payor deliver funds that her client was entitled to receive and failed to promptly render a full account of such property when requested, in violation of MRPC 1.5(b)(3); and failed to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known to her to have arisen in the matter, in violation of MRPC 8.1 (a)(2). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1 )-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) and (b).

The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,985.73

Mark A. Armitage Dated: October 20, 2016

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.