MEMBERS JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD
MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS
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 REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case Nos. 20-47-JC; 20-48-GA Notice Issued: February 9, 2021 Thomas J. Blasen, P 40250, Williamston, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #7
Reprimand, Effective February 2, 2021 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted - by guilty plea - of one count of operating while impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCR 750.227c, in the 53 rd Judicial District Court, Livingston County, Case No. 19-1929-FY. Additionally, the stipulation contains respondent’s admission that he failed to answer a Grievance Administrator’s Request for Investigation (GARI) that was subsequently served on him requesting that he provide an explanation of the underlying events that lead to his conviction.
Based upon respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5); failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); and failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113, in violation of MCR 9.104(7). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(c).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $771.40.
/s/ Mark A. Armitage Executive Director