MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF
CHAIRPERSON 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
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 09-109-GA Notice Issued: May 21, 2010 David G. Grunst, P 36420, Traverse City, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Grand Traverse Hearing Panel #1.
1. Reprimand 2. Effective May 21,2010 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.11S(F)(S), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Respondent pleaded no contest to the allegations in the formal complaint that, in an appeal of a first-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction, handled a legal matter which he knew or should have known he was not competent to handle without associating with a lawyer who was competent to handle it; handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances; neglected a legal matter; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; failed to keep a client reasonably informed and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; failed to take reasonable steps to protect a clients interests upon termination of representation; and failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.
Respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a)-(c); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 1.16(d); 3.2; and 8.4(a)-(c).
Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and be subject to conditions relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $832.30.
MAY 21 2010' Dated: __________