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

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

WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION (By Consent)

Case No. 08-29-GA Ray A. Paige, P 41848, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #25.

1. Reprimand 2. Effective January 3, 2009 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 pled no contest to the allegations that in one matter, he neglected the legal matter; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; and failed to refund an unearned attorney fee. In a second matter; respondent pled no contest to the allegations that he failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the matter; and in a third matter, respondent pled no contest to the allegation that he failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. Finally, in a supplemental stipulation, respondent pled no contest to the allegation that in two matters, he filed answers to requests for investigation outside the time provided under MCR 9.113(A).

Respondent's conduct was in violation of MeR 9.1 04(A)(7); MCR 9.113(A) and (8)(2); and Michi'gan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.3; 1.4(b); and 1.16.(d)

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and pay restitution in the aggregate amount of $2,000.00. The panel also ordered that respondent be subject to a condition relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $887.99.

Dated:

January 19, 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.