Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS THOMAS G. KIENBAUM

CHAIRPERSON JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON SYL VIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D.

SECRETARY ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. CARL E. VER BEEK CRAIG H. LUBBEN LAWRENCE G. CAMPBELL DULCE M. FULLER LOUANN VAN DER WIELE

STATE OF MICHIGAN

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MARK A. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR JENNIFER M. PETTY LEGAL ASSISTANT

211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROI"L. MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHuNE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION (By Consent)

Case No. 13-37- GA Notice Issued: August 22, 2013

William B. Rekshan, P 19353, Marquette, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Upper Peninsula Hearing Panel #1.

1. Disbarment 2. Effective August 22, 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. Based on respondent's plea of no contest, the hearing panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the him, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to

act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to promptly payor deliver funds that a third person is entitled to receive, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to promptly render a full accounting offunds, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to refund an unearned advance fee, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1 (a)(2); failed to

file an answer fully and fairly disclosing all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct, in violation of MCR 9.113(A); filed an answer containing misrepresentations, in violation of MCR 9.113(A); failed to answer a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.113(A); and failed to answer the request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113 and 9.115(0), in violation of MCR 9.104(7). The panel also found that respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a)-(c) and MCR 9.104(1 )-(4).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan and that he pay restitution in the aggregate

amount of $42,378.94. Costs were assessed in the amount of $$1,123.88.

John F. AUS 22 2013 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.