Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS THOMAS G. KIENSAUM

CHAIRPERSON JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D. SECRETARY ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. CARL E. VER SEEK

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

DETROI1. MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHvNE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent) Case No. 13-13-GA Notice Issued: June 25, 2013

Lisa A. Godfrey, P 38385, Kalamazoo, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kalamazoo Hearing Panel #1. 1. Reprimand 2. Effective June 25, 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 panel found that respondent failed to have a QORO prepared and entered in a post-divorce matter,

and failed to provide the client file to successor counsel. Specifically, respondent neglected her client's legal matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep her client reasonably

informed about the status of the matter and to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to communicate with her client to the extent reasonably necessary for herto make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); and failed to release her client file upon termination of the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d). The panel also found that respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(1 )-(4).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $756.51.

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.