MEMBERS JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD
MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS
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
AMENDED 1 NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)
Case Nos. 21-39-JC; 21-40-GA Notice Issued: September 8, 2021 Richard A. Dietz, P 31940, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #15.
Reprimand, Effective September 1, 2021 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand, 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 admissions that he was convicted of operating while impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.6253-A, in City of Novi v Richard Arthur Dietz, 52-1 District Court Case No. 20-002275-OD, and his admission that he failed to provide notice of his conviction to the Attorney Grievance Commission and Attorney Discipline Board, as set forth in the Administrator’s combined Notice of Filing of a Judgment of Conviction and Formal Complaint filed on June 25, 2021.
Based on respondent’s conviction, admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent engaged in conduct that was in violation of a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5); failed to report his conviction, in violation of MCR 9.120(A) and (B); engaged in conduct that violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); and engaged in conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional conduct 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 $750.00.
1 Amended as to respondent’s conviction description. Changed from operating while intoxicated to operating while impaired.