Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

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 Case No. 10-113-GA Notice Issued: March 25, 2013 Michael L. Stefani, P 20938, Royal Oak, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board, increasing Tri-County Hearing Panel #25's order of reprimand to a 30-day suspension.

1. Suspension - 30 Days (with credit given for 30 days) 2. Effective March 22, 2013 The hearing panel found that statements made or omitted by respondent in the course of settlement negotiations violated MRPC 4.1, 8.4(a)-(c); and MeR 9.1 04(A)(1 )-(4). The panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded.

The Grievance Administrator filed a petition for review, seeking an increase in discipline, and respondent filed a cross-petition. The Board conducted review proceedings and, on February 21, 2013, issued its order increasing discipline from a reprimand to a 30-day suspension of respondent's license to practice law in Michigan. However, the Board also ordered that respondent be given credit for the 30-day suspension ordered in a related matter, Grievance Administrator v Michael L. Stefani, Case No. 09-47 -GA, and served by respondent between January 1, 2012, and February 7,2012.1 Total costs were assessed in the amount of $3,650.00.

Dated:___________

1 The Board, in Grievance Administrator v Michael L. Stefani, Case No. 09-47-GA, ordered that the reprimand ordered by the hearing panel be increased to a 30-day suspension, which commenced January 1, 2012. Respondent was automatically reinstated to the practice of law on February 7, 2012, upon the filing of his affidavit of compliance in accordance with MCR 9.123(A) with the Michigan Supreme Court ..

--_._---­

 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.