Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF

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

SECRETARY GEORGE H. LENNON BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D. ANDREA l. SOLAK ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D.

CARL E. VER BEEK CRAIG H. LUBBEN

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARKA. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JENNIFER M. PETlY LEGAL ASSISTANT

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

WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

FINAL NOTICE OF REPRIMAND Case Nos. 06-102-GA; 07-5-GA Notice Issued: October 8, 2008

Richard I. Lippitt, P 64242, Milford, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board, affirming Tri-County Hearing Panel #82's order of reprimand.

1. Reprimand 2. Effective April 15, 2008 The respondent appeared at the hearing and filed an answer to the formal complaint. The hearing panel found that respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client; and failed to take reasonable steps to protect his client's interests upon termination of the representation. In a second matter, respondent failed to surrender papers and property to his clients; and failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his clients. In both cases, respondent was found to have neglected the matters; failed to keep his clients reasonably informed abo·ut the status of their matters; and failed to explain the matters to his clients to the extent reasonably necessary to permit them to make informed decisions regarding their representation.

Respondent's conduct was found to be in violation of MCR 2.117(C)(2); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.3. 1.4(a) and (b), 1.16(d), and 3.2.

The panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. The Grievance Administrator filed a petition for review and, upon review, the Attorney Discipline Board affirmed the hearing panel's order of a reprimand. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $3,249.85.

Dated: JlCLA..2DtJa-

 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.