Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS LORI McALLISTER

CHAlRP,ERSON WILLIAM J. DANHOF

VICEĀ·CHAIRPERSON WilLIAM l. MATTHEWS, 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 DEPU7Y DIREGOR JENNIFER M. PETTY LEGAL ASSISTANT

211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT....MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHuNE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION (By Consent)

Case No. 07-22-GA Notice Issued: October 31, 2007 John F. Royal, P 27800, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #15.

1. Reprimand 2. Effective October 18, 2007 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 a legal matter; failed to communicate with his client regarding the status of his legal matter and to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; and failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client. In a second matter, respondent pled no contest to the allegations that he failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her matter and to respond to her requests for information; and failed to communicate to his client regarding the basis or rate of his fee, preferably in writing.

Respondent was charged with violations of MCR 9.104(A)(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (c); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); and 1.5(b).

The parties stipulated that respondent should be reprimanded and pay restitution in the amount of $8,000.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1 ,230.81.

Dated:

OCT S120\Jr _

 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.