Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

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 DrRECTOR

JENNIFER M. PETTY LEGAL ASSISTANT

211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 141Q DETROIT, MICHIGAN 4B226-3236 PHONE, 313-963-5553

FAX,313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION Case No_ 09-79-GA Notice Issued: January 5, 2010 Ernest Laster, P 37396, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #82_

1. Suspension - 30 Days 2. Effective December 12, 2009 Respondent filed an answer to the formal complaint and appeared at the hearings. Based on the testimony and exhibits presented, the hearing panel found that respondent failed to keep his client reasonably informed; failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; failed to withdraw from representation after being discharged by the client; failed to return the client's files; failed to refund the legal fees paid; engaged in representation of a client directly adverse to another client; engaged in representation of a client that was materially limited by responsibilities to another client, a third person, or the lawyer's own interests; and represented a person in the same or a substantially related matter when that client's interests were materially adverse to the interests of a former client.

Respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(2) and (4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(a); 1.7(a) and (b); 1.9(a); 1.16(a)(3) and (d); and 8.4(a)_

The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days, effective December 12, 2009, and that he pay restitution in the amount of $1,600.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,258_13_

Dated: JAN - 5 2010

 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.