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
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR JENNIFER M. PETTY LEGAL ASSISTANT
211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROl1 MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHuNE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571
NOTICE OF DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION (Pending Remand)
Case No. 13-61-GA Notice Issued: November 7,2013
Thomas W. Deprekel, P 31223, Bay City, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri Valley Hearing Panel #3.
1. Disbarment 2. Effective October 16, 2013 Respondent did not appear at the hearing and was found to be in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on respondent's default, the hearing panel found that respondent, in a divorce matter, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of
his matter and failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1 .4(a); failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); failed to promptly payor deliver funds that his client was entitled to receive; in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to promptly render a full accounting of client funds upon request, in violation of MRPC
1.15(b)(3); and failed to hold client funds separate from the lawyer's own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d). The panel also found that respondent's conduct violated MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(1 )-(3).
The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred from the practice law in Michigan, effective October 16,2013, and pay restitution in the amount of $7,662.50. Respondent filed a petition for review, along with a request for a stay of discipline. The Grievance Administrator filed an objection
to respondent's request for stay of discipline, along with a motion to dismiss the petition for review.
On November 1,2013, the Attorney Discipline Board denied both the respondent's request for a stay of discipline and the Grievance Administrator's motion to dismiss the petition for review. This matter has been remanded to Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #3 to provide respondent an
opportunity to file a motion to set aside the default.
~q~ arkAAlTIlItage ~ NOV -7 2Ill3 Dated: _______