Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS LORI McALLISTER

CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM J. DANHOF VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM l. MATTHEWS, CPA SECRETARY GEORGE H. LENNON BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D. HON. RICHARD F. SUHRHEINRICH ANDREA L. SOLAK

THOMAS G. KIENBAUM EILEEN LAPPIN WEISER

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MARK A. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JENNIFER M. PETTY LEGAL ASSISTANT

211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571

WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)

Case No. 06-03-GA Notice Issued: July 24, 2008 Frederick L. McDonald, P 17366, Ann Arbor, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #1 .

1. Reprimand 2. Effective November 3, 2006 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 charges of neglecting a legal matter e~trusted to him; and failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client, in violation of Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (c); 1.3; and 3.2.

Based on the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. The complainant filed a petition for review and, on May 1,2007, the Board affirmed the hearing panel's consent order of reprimand. Complainant then filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, who directed the Grievance Administrator and the respondent to file briefs in response. The Court also invited the Attorney Discipline Board to file a brief in response.

After reviewing the briefs submitted by the Grievance Administrator, respondent, and the Attorney Discipline Board, the Court denied complainant's application for leave to appeal on June 25,2008. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $996.91.

John F. Van Bolt .Dated: JUL! 4 2008

 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.