Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

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 ADMINISTRA TOR JENNIFER M. PETTY PARALEGAL KATHLEEN PHILLIPS CASE MANAGER ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION (By Consent)

Case No. 13-103-GA Notice Issued: April 21,2014 Harilaos I. Sorovigas, P 69741, Lansing, Michigan, by the Ingham County Hearing Panel #6. 1. Suspension - 30 Days 2. Effective April 19, 2014 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. Based on respondent's plea of no contest, the hearing panel found that respondent failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary

to permit his clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); undertook the representation of clients that was or could have been materially limited by the lawyer's own interests, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b); and prepared an instrument giving the lawyer and a person related to the lawyer as spouse a substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift where the lawyer was not related to the donee, in violation of MRPC 1.8(c). The panel also found the respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (b); and MCR 9.104(2)-(4).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days. The panel also ordered that respondent be subject to a condition relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $812.41.

/kf:J:e~APR 2 1 Z014 Dated: _______

 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.