Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WIlliAM J. DANHOF

CHAIRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM

VICE-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 DIREGOR MARK A. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIREGOR JENNIFER M. PETTY LEGAL ASSISTANT

211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT 6MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PH NE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS Case Nos. 10-88-RD; 10-89-JC Notice Issued: April 7, 2011

Charles A. Carpenter, P 61118, Maryville, Tennessee, by Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #21.

1. Suspension - 1 Year 2. Effective April 7, 2011 In an order entered January 6,2010, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended respondent, Charles A. Carpenter, from the practice of law in Tennessee for a period of three months. The Grievance Administrator filed a petition for order to show cause why an order of reciprocal discipline

should not be entered in Michigan (Case No.1 0-88-RD). Contemporaneously with the petition, the Grievance Administrator filed a Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction (Case No. 10-89-JC), showing that respondent had been convicted of False Pretenses - Over $200.00 but less than $1,000.00, a misdemeanor, in the 14A-1 Washtenaw District Court.

Respondent did not appear at the public hearing. The hearing panel concluded that the order ofthe Tennessee Supreme Court constituted conclusive proof of misconduct; that respondent was afforded due process of law in the course of the original proceeding; and that the imposition of identical discipline in Michigan would not be clearly inappropriate.

The hearing panel, based on the order of suspension from Tennessee and respondent's misdemeanor conviction in Michigan, ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for one year and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established

misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,683.42.

 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.