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 MICHIGAN

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

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

m~Mit~§mllt).~~

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

FINAL NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (8y Consent} Case Nos. 14-94-AI; 14-121-JC Notice Issued: May 21,2015

Paul F. Semperger, P 20214, Plymouth, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #4. 1. Suspension - 179 Days 2. Effective September 23,2014 1 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of 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 was convicted of operating while intoxicated, third, a felony, in violation of MCl 257.62560. Based on respondent's conviction and his admission, the panel found that respondent engaged in conduct that violated the criminal laws of the State of Michigan, contrary to MCR 9.104(5).

The hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 179 days, effective September 23,2014, as stipulated by the parties. Additionally, the panel ordered that respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the admitted misconduct.

Total costs were assessed in the amount of $756.69.

'fo£4flcJ--~~ Mark A Armitage MlJ' 2 j 2. Dated: ________

1 Respondent was automatically reinstated to the practice of law on May 18, 2015. Please see Notice of Automatic Reinstatement issued May 20, 2015.

 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.