MEMBERS JAMES M. CAMERON, JR.
CHAIRPERSON CRAIG H. LUBBEN
VICE-CHAIRPERSON 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, 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
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 12-66-GA Notice Issued: April 21, 2014
Frederick J. Blackmond, P 29696, Lansing, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #1.
1. Reprimand 2. Effective April 19, 2014 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an amended 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 who found that respondent engaged in a conflict of interest by representing clients where the representation was materially limited by the
lawyer's responsibilities to another client, and materially limited by the lawyer's own interests, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b); failed to exercise independent professional judgment when representing a client, in violation of MRPC 2.1; neglected legal matters entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek his clients' lawful objectives through reasonably available means permitted by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to adequately communicate with his clients, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) and (b); and failed to timely answer three Requests for Investigation, in violation
of MCR 9.104(7) (formerly MCR 9.1 04(A)(7», MCR 9.1 13(A), and MCR 9.1 13(B)(2). The panel also found that respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (c) and MCR 9.104(1 )-(3) (formerly MCR 9.1 04(A)(1 )-(3».
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and that he be subject to a number of conditions relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,489.58.
eeley APR 2 1 Z014 Dated: ________