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 DERWIELE
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 WITH CONDITION (By Consent)
Case No. 12-97- GA Myles B. Hoffert, P 15031, Farmington Hills, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri County Hearing Panel #65.
1.
2.
Reprimand
Effective January 30, 2013
The respondent and the Grievance Administrator submitted a stipulation for consent order of discipline in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5). The stipulation was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and was accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains respondent's plea of nolo contendere to the allegations that he used or participated in a form of of public communication that was false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive, in violation of MRPC 7.1; used or participated in a form of public communication that contained a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omit a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading, in violation of MRPC 7.1 (a); used or participated in a form of public communication that was likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or state or imply that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law, in violation of MRPC 7.1 (b); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court, contrary to MCR 9.104(4).
Based on the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and be subject to a condition relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $882.43.