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 DER WIELE MICHAEL MURRAY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN
STATE OF MICIDllGAN 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. PETTIY PARALEGAL KATHLEEN PHILLIPS CASE MANAGER ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION Case Nos. 14-79-GA; 15-21-GA Notice Issued: August 26,, 2015
David Wenger, II, P 23078, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #23.
1. Suspension - 180 Days 2. Effective August 26, 2015 Respondent appeared at the hearing and filed answers to the formal complaints. The hearing panel found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondent failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from his own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); failed to deposit legal fees paid in advance of services rendered into a client trust account, in violation of MRPC 1.15(g); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, contrary to MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation 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 that
exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and, engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
The hearing panel, by a majority, ordered that respondent's license to practice law be suspended for 180 days, effective August 26, 2015. A dissenting panelist concluded that disbarment would have been the more appropriate sanction. However, the panel was unanimous in ordering respondent to pay restitution in the amount of $2,600.00. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $3,199.78.
~~ Mark A. Armitage Datted:: _AUu_b" _2_ 6 _ Z21II_.S5 __