MEMBERS LORI McALLISTER
CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM J. DANHOF VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM l. MATTHEWS, CPA SECRETARY GEORGE H. LENNON BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D. HON. RICHARD F. SUHRHEINRICH ANDREA l. SOLAK THOMAS G. KIENBAUM ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D.
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARKA. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR JENNIFER M. PETTY LEGAL ASSISTANT
211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT A MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHuNE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG
FINAL NOTICE OF SUSPENSION Case No. 05-26-GA Notice Issued: September 3, 2008 Jamal J. Hamood, P 40442, Dearborn, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board, increasing Tri-County Hearing Panel #14's order of a 30 day suspension to a 180 day suspension.
1. Suspension - 180 Days 2. Effective August 30,2008 The hearing panel found that respondent entered into a business relationship with a client without sufficiently advising her, in writing, that she should seek the advice of other counsel. The panel acknowledged that language regarding the right to seek other counsel appeared in the document presented to the client, but found' that the client was not given sufficient time, prior to signing the document, to actually read, understand, and, if necessary, act upon advice that was not in her native language. Additionally, respondent entered into a business transaction with that same client without sufficiently advising her of the risks of the transaction. In a separate matter, the panel found that respondent failed to safeguard the property of a, third person; failed to promptly return
the entire amount of an overpayment ($29,986.50) as soon as he was made aware of its existence;
and mi'shandled the excess funds by disbursing those funds as part of an unrelated settlement of another client's matter.
Respondent was found to have committed professional misconduct in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(2) and (3); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(a); 1.15(a)-(d) , and 8.4(b).
The panel ordered that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 30 days. The Grievance Administrator filed a timely petition for review and, upon review, the Attorney Discipline
Board increased respondent's discipline from a 30 day suspension to a l 180 day suspension~ to commence May 29, 2008. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for stay of discipline. The Board granted respondent's motion for a stay of discipline and, on August 1, 2008, the Board denied respondent's motion for reconsideration. The Board also ordered that respondent's 180 day suspension commence August 30,2008, with credit given for the 31 day period of suspension respondent already served from September 14,2007 through October 14, 2007. Respondent filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied on August 26, 2008. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $4,894.18.
Date'd:
'SEP 32008 --------