Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS THOMAS G. KIENBAUM

CHAIRPERSON JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON SYLVIA P. WHITMER, PhD.

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 WITH CONDITION (By Consent)

Case No. 12-88-RD Notice Issued: December 20,2012 Jeffrey David Thav, P 63126, Bingham Farm, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #3.

1. Suspension - 179 Days 2. Effective August 22, 2012 Based on respondent's one year suspension from the practice of law in the United States Federal Court-Western District of Michigan-Southern Division, the Grievance Administrator filed a petition for order to show cause why an order of reciprocal discipline should not be entered. In accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), the respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel.

The stipulation contains the parties' agreement that, based on respondent's one year suspension in the United States Federal Court-Western District of Michigan-Southern Division, respondent's license to practice law in Michigan should be suspended for 179 days, effective August 22, 2012, and respondent should be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct.

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 179 days, effective August 22, 2012, and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,021.45.

DEC202012 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.