MEMBERS THOMAS G. KIENBAUM CHAIRPERSON JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D.
SECRETARY CARL E. VER BEEK CRAIG H. LUBBEN SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D 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 REPRIMAND WITH CONDITION (By Consent)
Case No. 12-13-GA Notice Issued: November 7,2012 Edward N. Walters, P 67441, Ypsilanti, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline 80ard Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #3.
1. Reprimand 2. Effective November 3, 2012 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator submitted an amended stipulation for consent order of discipline in accordance with MCR 9.11S(F)(S). The stipulation was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and was accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains respondent's plea of no contest to the allegations that, in an immigration respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek the clients' lawful objectives through reasonably available means permitted bylaw, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients, in violation of MRPC 1 3; failed to refund the advance payment of the fee and costs upon termination of the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interest of his clients, in violation of MRPC 3.2; violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, contrary to MRPC 84(a); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.1 04(2) (formerly MCR 9.1 04(A)(2); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (formerly MCR 9.1 04(A)(3)); and, engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.1 04(4) (formerly MCR 9.1 04(A)(4)). The panel further found that respondent failed to timely answer a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.113(A), MCR 9.113(8)(2), and MCR 9.104(7) (formerly MCR 9.1 04(A)(7)), engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) (formerly MCR 9 10 4(A)(1)); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR9.1 04(2) (formerly MCR 9.1 04(A)(2)); and, engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (formerly MCR 9,104(A)(3)).
The stipulation was approved by the hearing panel and, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and be subject to a condition relevant to t II d isconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $769.31.
-7 3)12 ---------------- -------------------------