Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WILLIAM P. HAMPTON

CHARPERSON LORI McALLlSTER VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM L. MATTHEWS, CPA

SECRETARY REV. IRA COMBS, JR. GEORGE H. LENNON BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D. HON. RICHARD F. SUHRHEINRICH

STATE OF MICHIGAN

ATTORNEYD ISCIPLINBEO ARD

2 1 1 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT MICHIGAN 48226-3236 P H ~ N E3:1 3-963-5553 FAX: 31 3-963-5571

WILLIAM J. DANHOF ANDREA L. SOLAK

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent) Case No. 06-56-GA Notice Issued: June 12, 2007

Marcellus Long, Jr., P 43630, Pontiac, Michigan, by Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #64. 1. Reprimand 2. Effective June 5, 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 his representation of his defendant client in a landlord tenant action, he handled a matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances; neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by his client; failed to seek the lawful objectives of his client; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; failed to communicate with his client to the extent reasonably necessary for the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client; engaged in conduct that exposes the profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach; and engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals.

Respondent was charged with violations of MCR 9.104(A)(I)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct I. I(b ) and (c); 1.2(a); 1.4(a) and (b); 1.3; and 8.4(a) and (c). The parties agreed that respondent should be reprimanded and costs were assessed in the amount of $879.75.

Dated:

JUN 1 2 2Q7-

 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.