Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS THOMAS G. KIENBAUM CHAIRPERSON JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D.

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 CONDITIONS Case Nos. 12-S7-JC; 12-S8-GA Notice Issued: September 13,2013

Timothy P. Murphy, P 25941, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #107.

1 . Suspension - 180 Days 2. Effective September 6, 2013 Respondent filed an answerto the formal complaint and appeared at the hearing. The panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct based on his prior convictions for the misdemeanors of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWl), 2nd, in violation of MCl 257.6256(B); and allowing an unlicensed driver (himself) to operate a motor vehicle, in violation of MCl257.326. Additionally, the panel found that respondent failed to report these convictions on his dues statements, and failed to report two prior convictions (1992 and 1996, respectively) when SCAO 2003-S went into effect. The panel found that respondent disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation ofMRPC 3.4(c), and violated MRPC 8.4(b) and (c) and MCR 9.1 04(1) and (3)-(5).

The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 60 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. The Grievance Administrator filed a petition for review and respondent filed a cross-petition for review. The Attorney Discipline Board, upon review, issued an order increasing discipline from a 60-day suspension with conditions to a 180-day suspension with conditions. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,443.07.

Dated: SEP 13 2013

 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.