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 DER WIELE

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 ADMIN/STRA TOR

JENNIFER M. PETTY PARALEGAL

KATHLEEN PHILLIPS CASE MANAGER

ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER

JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITION (By Consent)

Case No. 13-135-GA Notice Issued: March 21, 2014

Marlo D. Bruch, P 70362, Kalamazoo, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kalamazoo Hearing Panel #2.

1. Reprimand 2. Effective March 21, 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 admission, the panel found that respondent represented a client when the representation of that client was materially limited by respondent's responsibilities to another client, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b); represented a client when the representation of that client was materially limited by respondent's own interests, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); and failed to act with reasonable diligence on behalf of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3. The panel also found that respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(3) and (4).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and be subject to a condition relevant to the admitted misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $757.17.

~a CL--b Mark A. Armitage

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.