MEMBERS WILLIAM P. HAMPTON CHAJRPERSON LORI McALLISTER VICE·CHAJRPERSON 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
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIREGOR MARK A. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR JENNIFER M. PETTY LEG/lLI>SSISTANT
211 WESTFORT ST. SUITE 1410
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571
WWW.ADBMICH.ORG
FINAL NOTICE OF REPRIMAND Case No. 05-112-GA Notice Issued: August 9, 2007 Paula D. Thornton, P 52492, Ormond Beach, Florida, by the Attorney Discipline Board, affirming Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #3's order of reprimand, and modifying in part as to
1. Reprimand 2. Effective September 5, 2006 Respondent was charged with professional misconduct in her handling of an immigration matter. The hearing panel dismissed the allegation that respondent knOWingly and/or attempted to knOWingly use a confidence or secret of a former client to the disadvantage of the client, a violation of Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(c)(1). The panel did find that respondent failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process; violated or attempted to violate the rules of professional conduct; 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's conduct was found to be in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(2)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 6.5(a); and 8.4(a).
The panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Respondent filed a petition for review which was dismissed on October 25, 2006 due to her failure to file a brief in support of her petition for review. The Grievance Administrator filed a cross-petition for review regarding the panel's dismissal of the charge alleging that respondent violated Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(c)(1 ).
On June 21, 2007, the Attorney Discipline Board issued its order modifying the hearing panel's order to include a finding that respondent's conduct was in violation of Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(c)(1). The Board's order affirmed the hearing panel's order in all other respects. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,376.65.
Dated: _A_U_G_9_1O_G_.~_