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 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147

PHONE: 313-963-5553

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

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION

Case No. 20-44-GA

Notice Issued: November 30, 2020

Christopher Allyn Sevick, P 69506, Ann Arbor, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #3.

Suspension - 180 Days, Effective November 24, 2020 Based on his default, the hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct by mishandling his IOLTA resulting in an overdraft, by commingling his own funds with client funds, by failing to answer a request for investigation, and by failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from the Grievance Administrator.

The panel found that respondent failed to hold property of his clients or third persons separately from his own and to adequately supervise the handling of his IOLTA to safeguard client funds, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); having received notification that an instrument presented against his trust account was presented against insufficient funds, failed to provide a full and fair explanation of the cause of the overdraft and how it was corrected, to the Grievance Administrator upon request within 21 days, in violation of MRPC 1.15A(f); failed to respond to a lawful demand for information in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); failed to answer a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(b). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(2)-(4); and MRPC 8.4(a).

The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 180 days, and that respondent be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,018.50.

/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.