Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS LAWRENCE G. CAMPBELL

VICE-CHAIRPERSON DULCE M. FULLER

SECRETARY ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. LOUANN VAN DERWIELE MICHAEL MURRAY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN

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 ADMINISTRA TOR JENNIFER M. PETTY PARALEGAL KATHLEEN PHILLIPS CASE MANAGER

ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)

Case No. 15-57-GA Notice Issued: November 23,2015

Charles Todd Inniss, P 61124, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #4. 1. Reprimand 2. Effective November 21, 2015 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 contained respondent's admissions that he had committed acts of professional misconduct by engaging in conduct that was contrary to the standards to which lawyers are held when he engaged in an altercation at his son's basketball game. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent engaged in conduct that was in violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that 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 good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3); engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state, in violation of MCR 9.104(5); and, engaged in conduct involving violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the respondent's fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $820.90.

Mark A. Armitage

Dated: __ tlO _ V _ 2_3_-__

 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.