Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

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 SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION Case No. 17-138-GA Notice Issued: January 27, 2021 Robert A. Canner, P 11572, Southfield, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #74

Suspension - 90 Days, effective January 13, 2021 The hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in a personal injury/premises liability matter, a second client in a claim against the City of Detroit for injuries suffered from a fallen tree, and a third client in a no-fault claim resulting from an auto accident.

Specifically, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of the client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep the client informed of the status of the matter and failed to promptly respond to reasonable requests for information regarding the client’s matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to safekeep client property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a); failed to promptly notify a third person that funds or property in which a third person has an interest were received, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1); failed to promptly pay or deliver any funds or other property that a third person is entitled to receive, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); deposited his own funds into a client trust account in an amount more than reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f); failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 5.1(a); with direct supervisory authority over another lawyer at respondent’s firm, failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 5.1(b); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); and, entered into an agreement that the complainant shall withdraw a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(10)(b). The panel found that respondent also violated MCR 9.104(1)-(4).

January 27, 2021

STATE OF MICHIGAN — ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

Page 2

The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 90 days and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Respondent timely filed a petition for review and a petition for stay, which was granted automatically pursuant to MCR 9.115(K).

Following proceedings conducted in accordance with MCR 9.118, the Board issued an opinion and order affirming the hearing panel’s order of suspension with condition. Respondent then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied in an order issued on December 22, 2020. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $5,366.90.

/s/ Mark A. Armitage Executive Director

 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.