MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DER WIELE CHAIRPERSON LAWRENCE G. CAMPBELL VICE-CHAIRPERSON DULCE M. FULLER SECRETARY ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. MICHAEL MURRAY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY
STATE OF MICmGAN 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 ADMINISTRA TOR JENNIFER M. PETTY PARALEGAL ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS Case No. 14-75-GA Notice Issued: Ap~iI 15, 2016
Nathaniel H. Simpson, P 41722, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #52.
1. Suspension - 179 Days 2. Effective April 15, 2016 Respondent filed an answer to the formal complaint and appeared at the hearings. The hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he held funds other
than client or third person funds in an IOLT A, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); deposited his own funds in the IOLT A account in excess of an amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); engaged in conduct which exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and, engaged in conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MRPC
8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4).
The hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 179 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,818.14.
'~l"/kAAi)11litMage a~-2 . APR t 5 ,01& Dated: ________