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 MICHIGAN ATIORNEY 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 ADMINISTRATOR ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY

www.adbmlch.org

NOTICE OF DISBARMENT (By Consent)

Case Nos. 16-47-AI; 16-75-JC Notice Issued: November 10, 2016 Thomas O. Mix, Jr., P 62659, Houghton lake, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #1.

Disbarment, Effective May 11, 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. The stipulation contains respondent's admission that he was convicted of larceny in a building, a felony, in violation of MCl 750.360, in People of the State of Michigan v Thomas Owen Mix, 34th Circuit Court Case No. 16-007596-FH-A; and of contempt of court for failure to appear for a probation violation, in People of the State ofMichigan v Thomas Owen Mix, 82nd District Court Case No. 16-19-GZ. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent's license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended on May 11, 2016, the date of his conviction.

Based on respondent's conviction and his acknowledgment in the stipulation, it was established that respondent engaged in conduct that violated the criminal laws of the State of Michigan, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be disbarred the practi of in Michigan. Costs were assessed in the amount of $863.42.

 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.