Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF

CHAIRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICEĀ· CHAIRPERSON ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D.

SECRETARY WILLIAM L. MATTHEWS ANDREA L. SOLAK CARL E. VER BEEK CRAIG H. LUBBEN

JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MARK A. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JENNIFER M. PETTY LEGAL ASSISTANT

211 WESTFORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571

WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF REVOCATION AND RESTITUTION Case No. 11-31-GA Notice Issued: September 23, 2011 Michael H. Oesterle, P 33008, Williamston, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #3.

1 . Revocation 2. Effective September 20,2011 Respondent did not appear at the hearing and was found to be in default for failing to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on respondent's default, the panel found that, between 1998 and 2001, respondent borrowed a total of $315,000.00 from a client under the terms of three promissory notes drafted by respondent. In 2004, respondent presented a blank signature page to his client representing that the signature page was related to another business transaction. When the client instituted a collection action against respondent for the amounts due under the promissory notes, respondent produced a purported "Settlement and Release Agreement": which included the signature page signed at respondent's request in 2004. That agreement was subsequently voided by the Ingham County Circuit Court due to fraud and a default judgment was entered against respondent. The panel also found that respondent failed to file an answer to a request for investigation served upon him by the Grievance Administrator.

Respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(1 )-(4) and (7); MCR 9.113(A); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1 (a)(2) and 8.4(b).

The panel ordered the respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be revoked and that he pay restitution in the amount of $679,667.02. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,064.89.

'. EP 232011 Dated: ___________

...... "'" , I

 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.