Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF

CHAIRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM

VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM l. MATIHEWS, CPA

SECRETARY BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D. ANDREA l. SOLAK ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. CARL E. VER BEEK

CRAIG H. LUBBEN JAMES M. CAMERON, JR.

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 (By Consent)

Case No. 08-102-GA Notice Issued: April 15, 2009 Jeffrey B. Hollander, P 49306, Farmington Hills, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #77.

1. Revocation 2. Effective April 15, 2009 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. Respondent pled no contest to the allegations that he failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; failed to promptly notify the client of all settlement offers; failed to explain a matter to a client to the extent necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; failing to promptly notify a client of receipt of funds in which the client has an interest; failed to promptly payor deliver funds which the client is entitled to receive; failed to hold client funds separate from the lawyer's own property; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.

Respondent was charged with violations of Michigan Court Rules 9.1 04(A)(1 )-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(a); 1.4(b); 1.15(b)(1); 1.15(b)(3); 1.15(d); and 8.4(a)-(c). The parties agreed that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan should be revoked. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,001.63.

Dated:

---------

 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.