Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WIlliAM J. DANHOF

CHAJRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICE·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 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

WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

FINAL NOTICE OF SUSPENSION Case No. 09-43-GA Notice Issued: August 19, 2011 Raymond A. Macdonald, P 16918, Utica, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board, affirming Tri-County Hearing Panel #22's order of suspension and modifying effective date ..

1. Suspension - Two Years 2. Effective August 3, 2010 The hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct by filing frivolous pleadings to delay proceedings in the district court; frivolously asserted or controverted an issue with the proceeding; and knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.

Respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1; 3.4(c); and 8.4(a) and (c).

The panel ordered the respondent's license to practice law be suspended for two years. Respondent filed a petition for review and requested a stay of discipline. The Board denied respondent's request for a stay of discipline, but modified the effective date of discipline from July 13, 2010, to August 3, 2010.

On December 10, 2010, the Attorney Discipline Board affirmed the hearing panels' order of suspension, and on February 8,2011, the Board denied respondent's motion for reconsideration.

Respondent's application for leave to appeal was denied by the Michigan Supreme Court on July 25,2011. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $3,174.45.

Dated:_A--.:U:.-.:=6'--".1... ...9. ~-2,.,.OL.&:.ll1_· _

 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.