Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS LORI McALLISTER

CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM J. DANHOF

VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM L. MATIHEWS, CPA

SECRETARY GEORGE H. LENNON BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D. HON. RICHARD F. SUHRHEINRICH ANDREA L. SOLAK

THOMAS G. KIENBAUM EILEEN LAPPIN WEISER

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARK A. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JENNIFER M. PETIY LEGAL ASSISTANT

211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROITAMICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHuNE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571

WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION Case No. 08-13-GA Notice Issued: June 25,2008

Judith A. Plantz, P 38325, East Lansing, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #5.

1. Suspension - 180 Days 2. Effective June 25, 2008 The respondent failed to appear at the hearing and was found to be in default for her failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on that default panel found that respondent handled a legal matter which she knew or should have known she was not competent to handle, without associating with an attorney who was competent to handle it; handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances; neglected and abandoned a legal matter; failed to seek the lawful objectives of her client; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to allow her client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; charged a clearly excessive contingent fee; failed to place the contingent-fee agreement in writing; failed to expedite litigation; represented a client, using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or using methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person; and failed to answer three requests 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); 9.113(A) and (B)(2); 8.121 (A), (B) and (F); and Michigan Rules o.fProfessional Conduct 1.1 (a)-(c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 1.5(a) and (c); 3.2; 8.1 (a)(2); and 8.4(a) and (c).

The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days and costs were assessed in the amount of $2,162.69.

 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.