MEMBERS LORI McALLISTER
CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM J. DANHOF VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM l. MATIHEWS, CPA
SECRETARY GEORGE H. LENNON BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D. HaN. RICHARD F. SUHRHEINRICH ANDREA l. SOLAK
THOMAS G. KIENBAUM EILEEN LAPPIN WEISER
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARKA. 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
DISMISSAL Case No. 06-01-GA Anthony T. Chambers, P 38177, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #4.
1. Dismissal 2. Effective September 15, 2006 The formal complaint filed by the Grievance Administrator charged that respondent had committed professional misconduct by handling a matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances; neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him; failing to act: with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client; failing to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her case and complying promptly with her reasonable requests for information; failing to explain the matter to his client to the extent necessary to permit her to make informed decisions about the representation; failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client; charging and collecting a clearly excessive fee; failing to provide an itemized billing as requested; failing to refund the advance payment of unearned fees upon termination of representation; engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administrati()n ofjustice; and knowingly misrepresenting facts or circumstances surrounding a request for investigation or complaint. Respondent's conduct was alleged to be in violation of MCR 9.1_Q4(A)(1 )ยทยท(4) a,nd (6); MCR 9.113(A); and Mi'chiga"n Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(b); 1.1(c); 1.3; 1.4(a); 1.4(b); 1.5(a); 1.15(b); 1.16(d); 3.2; and 8.4(a).
The panel found that the evidence did not establish that respondent neglected a legal matter, handled a matter without adequate preparation or failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness or failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite the litigation consistent with the interests of his client. Nor did the evidence support a finding that respondent failed to keep his client reasonably informed or failed to explain the matter to her to the extent reasonable necessary to permit her to make informed decisions about the representation. The panel also found that the allegations that respondent charged a clearly excessive fee; failed to provide an itemized billing as requested; and failed to refund unearned fees were not supported by the evidence presented.
The panel unanimously concluded that the evidence presented did not establish professional misconduct as described in the complaint and ordered that Formal Complaint 06-01-GA be dismissed. No costs were assessed.
Dated: SEP 15 2006 -----------