Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. CHAIRPERSON LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD VICE-CHAIRPERSON REV. DR. LOUIS J. PRUES SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER

PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS JASON M. TURKISH

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR

ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147

PHONE: 313-963-5553

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)

Case No. 21-46-GA Notice Issued: August 24, 2022 Isaiah Lipsey, P 57361, Southfield, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #79

Suspension - 30 Days, Effective August 24, 2022 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order 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 admission that he committed professional misconduct while using his IOLTA between July 2018 and 2020.

Based upon respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent held funds other than client or third funds in his IOLTA, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); failed to hold property of a client in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); and, deposited his own funds in his IOLTA in an amount more than reasonably necessary to pay financial service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f). The panel also found respondent in violation of MCR 9.104(1)-(3).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days and that respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,127.65.

 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.