MEMBERS WILLIAM P. HAMPTON
LOR CH I A M IR c P A E L R L S lS O T N E R VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM L. MATTHEWS, CPA
SECRETARY REV. IRA COMBS, JR. GEORGE H. LENNON BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D. HON. RICHARD F. SUHRHEINRICH WILLIAM J. DANHOF ANDREA L. SOLAK
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEYDI SCIPLINE BOP~RD
JESEHcNuT7Y\i kF~!%LRT M M ~ jK$w~ ~g $~~
21 1 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT MICHIGAN 48226-3236 P H ~ N E3:1 3 -963-5553 FAX: 313 -963-5571
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND A-N D -R ESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent) Case No. 06-126-GA Notice Issued: June 11,2007
Richard B. Scarfone, P 25797, Grosse Pointe, Michigan by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #6. 1. Reprimand 2. Effective May 8, 2007 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline containing respondent's plea of no contest to the allegations that he failed to abide by his client's decision regarding a settlement offer; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her matter; failed to communicate with his client to the extent reasonably necessary for the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; failed to communicate regarding the basis or rate of fees; failed to provide an accounting of client funds upon request of his client; failed to promptly notify his client of his receipt of funds in which she had an interest; and failed to promptly pay or deliver funds to his client to which his client was entitled. The parties stipulated that a reprimand is consistent with the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and that the panel should consider the mitigating effect of respondent's lack of prior disciplinary history. The Commission agreed that there was an absence of a dishonest motive and that the respondent cooperated fully with the Commission. Respondent was charged with violations of MCR 9.104(A)(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a); 1.4(a) and (b); 1.5(b); 1. I5 (b)(l) and (3); and 8.4(a). In accordance with the stipulation approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded, pay restitution in the amount of $2,028.80, and be subject to conditions relevant to the alleged misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $861.20.
J Dated: JUN 11 2007