Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WILLIAM P. HAMPTON

LORI McALLISTER VICE-CHAIRPERSON

WILSLEICARMETLA.RYMATTHEWS, CPA 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 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

~

JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARK A DEPUT? DIRECTOR JENNIFERM PETTY LEGAL ASSITANT

211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT MICHIGAN 48226-3236

PHFOAXN: E3:1331-396-936-535-575153 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent) Case No. 06-39-GA Notice Issued: March 27, 2007 EricJ. Knuth, P 44431, Lapeer, Michigan by the Attorney Discipline Board Genesee County Hearing Panel #4. 1. Reprimand 2. Effective March 27, 2007 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline containing respondents plea of no contest to the allegations that he neglected a legal matterentrusted to him; failed to seek the lawful objectives ofa client through reasonablyavailable means permitted by law and the rules of professional conduct; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice; engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach; and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals. Respondent was charged with violations of MCR 9.1 04(A)(1)-(3) and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 3.2; and 8.4(c). The parties agreed that respondent should be reprimanded and the panel assessed costs in the amount of $997.79.

Jo~~ Dated: M~R27 20U7

 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.