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 ADMINISTRA TOR

JENNIFER M. PETTY PARALEGAL

KATHLEEN PHILLIPS CASE MANAGER ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION (By Consent)

Case No. 13-83-GA Notice Issued: January 15, 2014

Saun-Roland Scott, P 57168, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #27.

1. Reprimand 2. Effective December 27, 2013 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. Respondent pled no contest to the allegations that he neglected a legal matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of his client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his client reasonably informed of the status of a matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to a client to the extent necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); failed

to refund the unearned portion of an advance fee, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); and failed to notify the client, in writing, by registered or certified mail, of his suspension, in violation of MCR 9.119(A). The panel also found that respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (c); and MCR 9.104(1 )-(4).

Based on the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and pay restitution in the amount of $240.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $881.97.

~a.~::J Mark A. Armitage JAN f 5 201. '. 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.