Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DER WIELE CHAIRPERSON LAWRENCE G. CAMPBELL VICE-CHAIRPERSON DULCE M. FULLER SECRETARY ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. REV. MICHAEL MURRAY JAMES A. FINK JOHN w. INHULSEN

JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY

STATE OF MICHIGAN 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 DEPUTY DIRECTOR

SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMIN/STRA TOR

JENNIFER M. PETTY PARALEGAL

ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER

OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER

JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTION/STISECRETARY

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)

Case No. 15-82-GA Notice Issued: July 8, 2016 John F. Royal, P 27800, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #27800.

1. Reprimand 2. Effective July 8, 2016 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon respondent's pleas and admissions, and the stipulation of the parties, the panel finds that respondent held funds other than client or third person funds in an IOlTA, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); failed to hold property of his clients or third persons separate from his own and in an IOlTA, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); deposited his own funds into an IOlT A in an amount more than reasonably necessary to pay financial institution charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f); and engaged in conduct which violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4).

In entering this finding of misconduct, the panel acknowledges paragraph three of the stipulation filed November 24, 2015, which states that respondent violated a duty owed to the profession, his mental state was negligent, and based upon the specific facts and circumstances of this case, there was no actual and little potential injury to any client.

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount $782.73.

/j1 ~t}9yi~ Mark A. Armitage

Dated: jUt,... 8 l~\~

 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.