Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

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 š FAX: 313-963-5571

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION Case No. 19-122-GA Notice Issued: July 15, 2020 Timothy Thomas Doty, P 75614, Center Line, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #104.

Suspension - 120 Days, Effective July 11, 2020. Respondent appeared at the hearing but was in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on respondent’s default, the hearing panel found that he committed professional misconduct in his representation of two separate clients. In a divorce matter, respondent did not appear at a rescheduled motion hearing and did not provide the court notice that he would not be appearing; filed late objections to an order resulting from his non-appearance at the motion hearing, resulting in an unfavorable order being entered against his client; failed to submit additional responses to discovery requests, resulting in opposing counsel filing a motion to compel and attorney fees imposed on his client; failed to appear at final settlement hearings after mediation to finalize the divorce order; failed to keep his client reasonably informed regarding the status of a matter; failed to explain a matter to a client to the extent reasonably necessary for a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; charging a clearly excessive fee; and failed to communicate the basis or rate of the fee to the client before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation. In his representation of a client in defense of a criminal matter, respondent filed an appearance with the court, then failed to appear for the arraignment, as well as two subsequently rescheduled hearings, resulting in a show cause hearing being scheduled; failed to appear for the show cause hearing, resulting in a civil contempt order and a $250 fine; and has not appeared on the contempt issue or paid the fine.

The panel found that respondent handled legal matters without preparation adequate in the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1(b); failed to seek the lawful objective of a client through reasonably available means, in violation of MRPC 1.2; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed regarding the status of a matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to a client to the extent reasonably necessary for a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); with regard to the March 29, 2019 invoice, charged or collected a clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); failed to communicate the basis or rate of the fee to the client before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.5(b); and knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(c).

July 15, 2020

STATE OF MICHIGAN — ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

Page 2

The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 120 days. Respondent filed a Motion of Relief From Judgment or Order Pursuant to Rule 2.612(C)(1)(f) and a request for stay. Respondent’s order was stayed pending the panel’s decision on respondent’s motion. On June 19, 2020, the panel issued an Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Relief from Judgment And Dissolving Interim Stay of Order of Discipline. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,064.56.

/s/ Mark A. Armitage Executive Director

 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.