MEMBERS JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN
KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER PETER A. SMIT
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR — KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL — SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR —
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER — JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY —
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147
PHONE: 313-963-5553
www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 20-37-JC Notice Issued: August 19, 2020 Ronald J. Benore, P 59712, Monroe, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #8.
Reprimand, Effective August 14, 2020 The Grievance Administrator filed a Notice of Filing of a Judgment of Conviction in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3), stating that respondent was convicted of operating while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.62561-A, and of weapons/firearms possession while under the influence, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 750.237, in a matter titled State of Michigan v Ronald James Benore, Jr., 1st District Court Case No.195793-SD. Contemporaneously with the filing of the Notice of Filing of a Judgment of Conviction, the parties submitted a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), which contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted as set forth in the judgment of conviction.
After reviewing the parties’ stipulation, the panel communicated its concerns in writing to the parties pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5)(c)(ii) and requested that the parties provide additional information. The parties submitted additional information to the hearing panel. On June 8, 2020, the panel notified the parties that it was considering rejecting the Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand, and the parties subsequently filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand With Conditions that the panel concluded was reasonable and consistent with the goals of these discipline proceedings.
Based on respondent’s conviction, admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.00.
/s/ Mark A. Armitage Executive Director