Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD

MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR

ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147

PHONE: 313-963-5553

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND Case No. 19-53-GA Notice Issued: July 14, 2021

Scott Robert Reizen, P 63724, Royal Oak, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board affirming Tri-County Hearing Panel #76’s order of reprimand.

Reprimand, Effective March 24, 2021 After proceedings held in accordance with MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he entered into agreements with two former clients, each of whom had filed separate requests for investigation against him, that the respective grievances would be dismissed following a financial settlement agreement with each former client, in violation of MCR 9.104(10)(b).

The panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Respondent filed a timely petition for review and a petition for a stay, which was automatically issued pursuant to MCR 9.115(K). The Attorney Discipline Board conducted review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, and in an order entered on October 1, 2020, affirmed the panel’s April 20, 2020 Order of Reprimand.

On October 28, 2020, respondent filed a timely application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which automatically continued the stay of the discipline order pursuant to MCR 9.122(C). The Court denied respondent’s application for leave to appeal in an order entered March 2, 2021. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on March 18, 2021, which was denied by the Court in an order entered on June 1, 2021.

Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,453.00.

 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.