Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

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

WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)

Case No. 12-32-GA Notice Issued: June 5, 2012

Daniel D. Ambrose" P 53053, Berkley, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board TriĀ­ County Hearing Panel #69.

1. Reprimand 2. Effective June 5, 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 no contest to the allegations that he engaged in conduct involving a failure to supervise, in violation of MRPC 5.1; engaged in a conflict of interest, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b); engaged in conduct involving discourteous conduct towards a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.5(d); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, contrary to MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4( c) and MCR 9.104(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 MRPC 9.104(2) (formerly MCR 9. 10 4(A)(2)); 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)).

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and be subject to conditions relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,164.30.

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.