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 DER WIELE MICHAEL MURRAY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN

STATE OF MICIDGAN 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 REPRIMAND (By Consent)

Case No. 1S-12-GA Notice Issued: June 15, 2015

Michael J. Golding, P 30186, Southfield, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri­ County Hearing Panel #68.

1. Reprimand 2. Effective June 11, 2015 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.11S(F){S), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel.

Based upon respondent's pleas, admissions, and the stipulation of the parties, the panel finds that respondent entered into a business transaction with a client without transmitting those terms to the client in writing, in violation of MRPC 1.8(a)(1); failed to obtain the client's consent to the loan in writing, in violation of MRPC 1.8(a)(3); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, contrary to MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct which exposed the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct which violated the standards or rules of professional responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $936.10.

Dated:

JUN 1 5~ Z-=

 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.