MEMBERS JAMES M.. CAMERON,, JR..
CHAIIRPERSON
LAWRENCE G.. CAMPBELL VICE-·CHAIRPERSON
SYLVIIA P.. WHIITMER,, Ph..D.. SECRETARY
ROSALIIND E.. GRIIFFIIN,, M..D.. DULCE M.. FULLER
LOUANN VAN DER WIIELE 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 EXEiCUTIIVE DIRECTOR
WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIiRECTi OR
SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFiICE ADMINI/STRA TOR
JENNIFER M. PETTY PARALEGAL KATHLEEN PHILLliIPS CASE MANAGEiR ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST
FINAL NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION Case No. 10-140-GA Notice Issued: October 16, 2014 Gregory J. Reed, P 24760, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #80. 1. Suspension - 90 Days 2. Effective October 15,, 2014 Respondent filed an answer to the formal complaint and appeared at the hearings. Based on the evidence submitted, the panel found that respondent failed to seek the lawful 0o bj.e ctives of hiis client through reasonably available means permitted by law, in violation of MRP C 1.2(a);
brought or defended a proceeding or asserted or controverted an issue without basis for doing so that is not frivolous, in violation of MRPC 3.1; failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent wiith the interests of his client, in violation of MRPC 3.2; and failed to report another attorney''s miscond uct to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, in violation of MR PC 8. 3(a ). The panell also found that respondent violated MCR 9.104(1), (2) and (4), and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c).
The hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Respondent filed a petition for review with a request for stay of discipline. The Grievance Admiiniistrator filed a cross-petition for review and, on June 26, 2013, the Board issued an order grantiing respondent's request for a stay of discipline and assigned the matter for hearing before the Attorney Discipline Board.
Upon review, the Attorney Diisciipline Board issued its opinion and order in which it affirmed the heariing panel's order of suspension with condition, but did not find that respondent had violated MRPC 8.3(a). Totall costs were assessed in the amount of $4,647.63.
Mark A.. Armiitage OCT 1 6 28114 Dated: ________