MEMBERS JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD
MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR — KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL — SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR —
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER — JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY —
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147
PHONE: 313-963-5553
www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)
Case No. 21-33-GA Notice Issued: August 10, 2021 Brian M. Norback, P 60501, Crestview, Florida, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #27
Reprimand, Effective August 10, 2021 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for 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 upon respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he pushed another driver during a traffic dispute and later pled no contest to battery, a misdemeanor, in contravention of Section 784.03(a) or 784.03(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (M-1) in State of Florida v Brian Norback, Okaloosa County 1 st Circuit Court, Case Number 2017-MM-002545-C. While respondent was sentenced to six months of probation and anger management counseling, the court withheld adjudication of the charge, and after respondent successfully completed probation no conviction was entered.
Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law of a state, or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law, in violation of MCR 9.104(5); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and, engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $779.16.