Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS JAMES M. CAMERON, JR.

CHAIRPERSON CRAIG H. LUBBEN

VICEĀ·CHAIRPEFISON SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D.

SECRETARY ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. CARL E. VER BEEK LAWRENCE G. CAMPBELL DULCE M. FULLER LOUANN VAN DERWIELE MICHAEL MURRAY

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

211 WEST FORT STREET,, SUIITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553 I FAX:: 313-963-5571

MARK A.. ARMIITAGE EXECUTIIVE DIIRECTOR WENDY A.. NEELEY DEPUTY DIIRECTOR

SHERRY L.. MIIFSUD OFFIICE ADMIINIISTRA TOR

JENNIIFER M.. PETTY PARALEGAL KATHLEEN PHIILLIIPS CASE MANAGER ALL YSON M.. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER JULIIE M.. LOIISELLE RECEPTIIONIIST

www..adbmiich..org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS Case No. 14-34-GA Notice Issued: August 11,2014

Emmett D. Greenwood, P 56556, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Disciiplliine Board Trii-County Hearing Panel #22.

1. Suspension - 150 Days 2. Effective August 9,2014 Respondent was found to be in default for his failure to file an answer to the fformall complaint, but he did appear at the hearing. Based on the default, the pane!l found that respondent filed a legal claim in a matter that had no basis that was not frivolous, in violatiion of IMVIRPC 3.1; knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunall in three matters, iin viiollatiion of MRPC 3.4(c); engaged in undignified or discourteous conduct toward a tribunall iin three matters, in violation of MRPC 3.5(d); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceiit, or misrepresentation where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); and failed to answer two requests for investigation, in violation of MCR 9. 1 04 (A) (7) and MCR 9.113(A) and (8B). The panell allso ffound that respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(2)-(4).

The panel ordered the respondent''s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 150 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costts were assessed iin the amount of $1,788.18.

AUG 1 1 at4 Datted:: ___________________

 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.