Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF CHAJRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICE·CHAJRPERSON ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D.

SECRETARY WILLIAM L. MATTHEWS ANDREA L. SOlAK 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 REVOCATION WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)

Case No. 10-59-JC Notice Issued: November 30,2010

J. Jeffrey Long, P 22912, Los Angeles, California, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #79.

1. Revocation 2. Effective September 15, 20091 Respondent was convicted in the Los Angeles Superior Court of nine counts of Grand Theft by Embezzlement and one count of Grand Theft of Personal Property, both felonies, in violation of PC 487(A}. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent's license to practice law in Michigan is suspended effective September 15,2009, the date of his felony conviction.

The respondent and 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 panel found that, based on his felony conviction, respondent had committed professional misconduct in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(5). In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be revoked, effective September 15, 2009, with a condition relevant to the admitted misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $767.47.

John F. Van Bolt NOV 30 201l Dated: ________

.,

1 Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since September 15, 2009. Please seeNo~1ce of Automatic Interim Suspension issued June 9, 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.