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
FINAL NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS Case No. 10-116-GA Notice Issued: December 9, 2011 Saun-Roland Scott, P 57168, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #3.
1. Suspension - 180 Days 2. Effective October 4, 2011 Respondent filed an answer to the formal complaint and appeared at the hearing. Based on the testimony and exhibits presented, the panel found that respondent had, with respect to two clients, neglected his clients' legal matters; failed to seek their lawful objectives; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; failed to keep his clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; and failed to explain the matters to his clients to the extent necessary to permit his clients to make informed decisions regarding their representation. In one of those matters, the panel also found that respondent made false statements regarding the reasons for the court's dismissal of his client's matter; and, in the second matter, respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite his client's litigation.
Respondent's conduct was found to be in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(2)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 3.2; 4.1; and 8.4(a).
The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct.
Respondent filed a request for a stay of discipline and a delayed petition for review. On October 20, 2011, the Attorney Discipline Board issued its order granting respondent's delayed petition for review, but denying the request for a stay of discipline.
Respondent failed to file a brief in support of his petition and, on December 2, 2011, the Attorney Discipline Board issued an order dismissing respondent's petition for review. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $3,007.28.
Dated:___________