Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF

CHAIRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICEĀ· CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM l. MATTHEWS, CPA SECRETARY ANDREA l. SOLAK ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. CARL E. VER BEEK CRAIG H. LUBBEN JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D

STATE OF MICIDGAN

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 PH 6MICHIGAN 48226-3236 NE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION Case No. 10-21-GA Notice Issued: July 30, 2010 Daniel E. Hunter, P 56222, Ypsilanti, Michigan, by Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #1.

1. Suspension - 270 Days 2. Effective July 30, 2010 The respondent did not appear at the hearing and was found to be in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on that default, the panel found that respondent in a paternity and child support matter, neglected the legal matter; failed to act with reasonable diligence; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; charged and collected a clearly excessive fee; failed to deposit legal fees paid in advance into a client trust account; failed to refund advanced unearned legal fees upon termination of representation; failed to file a timely answer to a request for investigation; and failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary

authority. In a divorce matter, respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; and knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.

Respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(1) and (2); MCR 9.1 13(B)(2); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.3; 1.4(a); 1.5; 1.15(g); 1.16(d); 3.2; 3.4(c); 8.1 (a)(2); and 8.4(c).

The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 270 days and that he pay restitution in the amount of $1,000.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1 ,937.51.

l302010 Dated: ________

-------------------_._--_ .. _--_.

 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.