Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS JAMES M. CAMERON, JR.

CHAIRPERSON LAWRENCE G. CAMPBELL VICE-CHAIRPERSON DULCE M. FULLER

SECRETARY ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D.

SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D LOUANN VAN DERWIELE MICHAEL MURRAY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN

STATE OF MICHIGAN

.l\TTORNEY 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 JENNIFER M. PETTY PARALEGAL

KATHLEEN PHILLIPS CASE MANAGER ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST

www.adbmich.org

AMENDED FINAL NOTICE OF REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION1 Case No. 12-29-GA Notice Issued: October 20,2015 Richard A. Meier, P 38204, Novi, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board, vacating Tri-County Hearing Panel #5's order of suspension and restitution; modifying the findings of misconduct, reducing discipline and modifying the order of restitution.

1. Reprimand 2. Effective July 15, 2015 The hearing panel found that respondent committed various types of misconduct while handling the matters oftwo clients. The hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law be suspended for 30 days and that he pay restitution in the aggregate amount of $8,000.00. Respondent petitioned for review and his suspension was stayed pending review by the Board.

Upon review, the Attorney Discipline Board modified the panel's findings of misconduct, concluding that there was adequate evidentiary support for only the finding that respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed regarding the status of her legal matter and respond promptly to reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a). The Board reduced discipline from a 30-day suspension to a reprimand and modified the order of restitution to $4,000.00. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $3,422.31.

Mark A. Armitage OCT 20ยท811 Dated: ________

1 Amended as to p-number only.

 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.