Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

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

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION (Pending Appeal)

Case No. 12-31-RD Notice Issued: October 29, 2012

Edward L. Johnson, P 54646, Birmingham, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board TriĀ­ County Hearing Panel #68.

1 . Suspension - 180 Days 2. Effective October 24, 2012 Respondent was ordered to show cause why he should not be subject to a reciprocal order of discipline based on his suspension from the practice of law in the United States District Court and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for his conduct in four separate bankruptcy matters.

Pursuant to MCR 9.104(B), proof of the adjudication of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding in another state or a United States court is conclusive proof of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings in Michigan. The panel found that respondent was afforded due process of law in the course of the original proceeding and that respondent failed to persuade the panel that the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan would be clearly inappropriate.

The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days. Respondent filed a petition for review and a motion for stay of discipline. On October 25, 2012, the Attorney Discipline Board issued its order denying the request for a stay of discipline, but stayed the payment of costs pending completion of the review proceedings ..

This matter will be scheduled for hearing before the Attorney Discipline Board.

Dated: 08129 2012

 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.