MEMBERS THOMAS G. KIENBAUM CHAIRPERSON JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D.
SECRETARY ANDREA L. SOLAK CARL E. VER BEEK CRAIG H. LUBBEN SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D
LAWRENCE G. CAMPBELL DULCE M. FULLER
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
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 12-37-GA Notice Issued: September 7, 2012 Marc J. Hollingsworth, P 65319, Oak Park, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri County Hearing Panel #62.
1. Reprimand 2. Effective August 28, 2012 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 failed to provide competent representation to his client, in violation of MRPC 1.1; neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in . violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek his client's lawful objectives through reasonably available means permitted by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to communicate with his client, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) and (b); failed to have a contingent-fee agreement in writing, in violation of MRPC 1.5(c); knowingly failed to respond to lawful demands for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1 (a)(2); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.1 04( 1) (formerly MCR 9.1 04(A)(1 »; engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2) (formerly MCR 9. 10 4(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 9.104(4) (formerly MCR 9.104(A)(4».
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 conditions relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $929.42.
Dated: ________