MEMBERS JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. CHAIRPERSON LAWRENCE G. CAMPBEll V/CE-CHAIRPERSON DULCE M. FULLER
SECRETARY ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D.
SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D LOUANN VAN DER WIELE
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 ADMINISTRATOR
JENNIFER M. PETTY PARALEGAL
KATHLEEN PHILLIPS CASE MANAGER
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS Case No. 13-46-GA Notice Issued: June 19,2015
Maria C. Salud, P 53140, Southfield, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #77.
1. Suspension - 60 Days 2. Effective June 19, 2015 The respondent appeared at the hearing and filed an answer to the formal complaint. The hearing panel found that respondent, in her representation of a client in an immigration matter, failed to file an immigration appeal in a timely matter, despite begin granted more than one extension; and failed to appropriately communicate with her client, or those associated with her client. More specifically, the panel found that respondent failed to seek the lawful objectives of her client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a}; neglected the legal matter, in violation of MRPC 1.2(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep her client reasonably informed of the status of the matter, in violation of in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); and failed to explain a matter to her client to the extent necessary to permit her client to make informed decisions regarding her representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b). The panel found that respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(1)-(4).
The hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law be suspended for 60 days with conditions specific to the established misconduct. Respondent petitioned for a stay of discipline and review of the panel's decision. The stay was automatically granted. Upon review, the Attorney Discipline Board affirmed the hearing panel's order of suspension but modified the conditions. Respondent then filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied on May 28, 2015. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,895.96.
Mark A. Armitage JtJN 1 9 2815 Dated: ________