MEMBERS THOMAS G. KIENBAUM CHAIRPERSON JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON SYLVIA 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 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553
FAX: 313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 13-12-GA Notice Issued: September 23, 2013 Jack F. Vogl, P 29584, Okemos, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board, Ingham County Hearing Panel #1 .
1. Suspension - 30 Days 2. Effective August is, 2013 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.11S(F)(S), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based on respondent's plea of no contest to specific allegations contained in the formal complaint, the panel finds that respondent, in three matters, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status oftheir matters and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain the matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his clients to make informed decisions regarding their representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); failed to appropriately safeguard client funds by depositing and holding them after deposit in an IOlTA or a non-IOlTA account, in violation of MRPC 1.1S(d); and, upon termination of representation, failed to refund any advance payments of fees that had not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1 .16(d). The panel also found that respondent neglected one of those legal matters, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); and knowingly failed to respond to two lawful demands for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1 (a)(2) and MCR 9.104(4). Finally, respondent was also found to have violated MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(2) and (3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law be suspended for 30 days, commencing August is, 2013, and that he pay restitution in the aggregate amount of $4,100.00. In addition, respondent was also ordered to be subject to conditions relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $917.8S.
1;J:;f1r~J Dated: SEP 23