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 DIREGOR MARK A. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR JENNIFER M. PETIY LEGAL ASSISTANT

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

WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION (By Consent)

Case No. 07-31-GA Notice Issued: November 20, 2007 Michelle L. Lund, P 51462, South Lyon, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #78.

1. Suspension - 45 Days 2. Effective November 2, 2007 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), containing respondent's plea of no contest to the allegations that she neglected a legal matter; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of her client; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice; engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach; and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals.

Respondent was charged with violations of Michigan Court Rules 9.1 04(A)(1)-(3); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (a) and (c); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 3.2; and 8.4(c).

The parties agreed that respondent's license to practice in Michigan should be suspended for 45 days and that she be subject to a condition relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,059.06.

Dated:

_

-------------- ----,

 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.