Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF CHAIRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM L. MATIHEWS, 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 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 SUSPENSION Case Nos. 06-76-JC; 06-77-GA Notice Issued: December 22, 2009 Murdoch Hertzog, P 14913, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board, increasing suspension from 120 days to 180 days.

1. Suspension - 180 Days 2. Effective December 22,2009 The panel found that respondent entered a plea of guilty on May 7, 2001 to a charge of assault and battery; failed to provide notice of his conviction as required by MCR 9.120(A); provided a false response to his 2003-2004 State Bar Dues Statement; failed to respond to the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 State Bar Dues Statements; failed to respondĀ· to a lawful demand for information from the Michigan Supreme Court; knowingly made a false statement of a material fact by claiming that the plea was under advisement; made sexually explicit remarks to a female client; and engaged in inappropriate physical contact with that client.

Respondent's conduct was found to be in violation of MCR 9.014(A)(1 )-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1 (A)(1) and (B)(2); and 8.4(a) and (c)

The hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 120 days. The Grievance Administrator filed a petition for review and respondent filed a cross-petition for review, along with a motion for stay of discipline, which was granted by the Attorney Discipline Board.

Upon .review, the Board issued its order increasing discipline from a 120 day suspension to a 180 day suspension. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $5,330.01.

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.