MEMBERS WilLIAM J. DANHOF
CHAIRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICE-CHAJRPERSON 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 4B226-3236 PH6 NE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case Nos. 09-62-GA; 09-75-FA Notice Issued: February 18, 2010 Frederick J. Blackmond, P 29696, Lansing, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham COllnty Hearing Panel #4.
1. Suspension - 90 days. 2. Effective February 1, 2010 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator submitted a stipulation for consent order of discipline in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5). The stipulation was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and was accepted by a hearing panel. The stipulation contains respondent's plea of no contest to the allegations that, in a criminal matter, he failed to provide competent representation to his client; failed to handle a legal matter which he knows or should know he is not competent to handle without associating with a lawyer who is competent to handle it; handling a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances; and neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. In a traffic ticket matter, respondent pleaded no contest to the allegations that he failed to seek his client's lawful objectives; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client; failed to abide by the client's decision with respect to the handling of the matter; and failed to withdraw from the matter after being discharged by the client. Respondent also pleaded no contest to knowingly failing to respond to the lawful demands for information from a disciplinary authority during the investigation of a Request for Investigation; and failing to file an answer to the formal complaint within 21 days of service.
Respondent's conduct was alleged to be in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(1 )-(4) and (7); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (a)-(c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.16(a)(3); 8.1 (a)(2); and 8.4(a) and (c).
Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days, effective February 1,2010, and that he be SUbject to conditions relevant to the alleged misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $927.89.
Dated:
FEB 18 2010.
_