MEMBERS MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. CHAIRPERSON LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD VICE-CHAIRPERSON REV. DR. LOUIS J. PRUES SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER
PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS JASON M. TURKISH
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 SUSPENSION Case No. 22-1-GA Notice Issued: July 15, 2022 L. David Bush, P 51870, Berkley, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #66.
Suspension - 2 Years, Effective July 14, 2022 1 After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of clients in two separate medical malpractice actions (Counts I and II), and appeared for closing arguments in In re Bourbeau Minors, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 2015-832568-NA, at a time when his license to practice law was suspended (Count III). Respondent was also alleged to have failed to answer or respond in any way to four separate requests for investigation (Count IV)
Based on respondent’s default, and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that as to Count I, respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests upon the termination of a representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a third person, in violation of MRPC 4.1; and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of MRPC 5.5(a).
As to Count II, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); and failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests upon the termination of a representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d).
1 Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since February 12, 2020, as a result of his failure to pay bar dues to the State Bar of Michigan. Respondent’s license to practice law was also suspended for a period of one year in Grievance Administrator v L. David Bush, 20-40-GA, effective November 18, 2020.
July 15, 2022
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
Page 2
As to Count III, the panel found that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of MRPC 5.5(a); failed to notify clients and courts of his suspension, in violation of MCR 9.119(A) and (B); failed to file a proof of compliance for his suspension, in violation of MCR 9.119(C); and failed to cease practicing law after the effective date of his suspension, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1)-(4).
As to Count IV, the panel found that respondent failed to answer requests for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7), 9.113(A), and 9.113(B)(2); and knowingly failed to respond to a disciplinary authority's request for information, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2).
The panel also found violations of MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a)-(c), as charged in each count of the complaint.
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of two years. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,920.97.