Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF

CHAIRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM l. MATTHEWS, 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

?11 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571

WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)

Case No. 08-25-GA Notice Issued: January 15, 2009 Gary W. Jones, P 56072, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #22.

1. Suspension - 30 Days 2. Effective December 15, 2008 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a 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. Respondent admitted that he knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach; and engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court. Additionally, based on the hearing panel's July 10, 2008 order, respondent was found to have failed to answer a request for investigation; and knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority.

Respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4) and (7); MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c); 8.1 (a)(2); and 8.4(a) and (c).

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days, effective December 15, 2008. The panel also ordered that respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1 ,134.92.

Dated:

January 15, 2009 _

 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.