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.

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 PH A uNE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS Case Nos. 08-90-JC; 08-91-GA

Notice Issued: April 22, 2009

Cynthia D. Lewko-Vermetten, P 43492, Farmington Hills, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #80.

1. Suspension - 15 Months 2. Effective March 21,2009 Respondent appeared at the public hearing, but was found to be in default for her failure to file an answer to the formal complaint or to file a response to the Notice of Filing Judgements of Conviction. Based on that default, the hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct for her two convictions of second degree retail fraud (in 1995 and 2005); and operating

a motor vehicle while visibly impaired (2007). With respect to Formal Complaint 08-91-GA, the panel found that respondent failed to report any of her convictions to the Grievance Administrator or the Attorney Discipline Board; failed to provide the State Bar of Michigan with accurate information regarding her convictions; and failed to answer a request for investigation served upon her by the Grievance Administrator.

Respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(1 )-(4) and (7); MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2); MeR 9.120(A); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c); 8.1 (a)(2); and 8.4(a)-(c)

The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 15 months and that she be subject to a two year probationary period. Costs were assessed in the amount of $566.41.

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.