Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

NOTICE OF REVOCATION AND RESTITUTION Case No. 05-110-GA Notice Issued: March 21, 2006

James L. Fisher, P 37359, Tecumseh, Michigan, by Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #2.

1. Revocation 2. Effective January 31, 2006 1 Based on respondent=s default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint and his admissions at the misconduct hearing, the panel found that respondent failed to notify the Attorney Grievance Commission of his May 13, 2004 convictions of Operating While Visibly Impaired and Open Alcohol in a Motor Vehicle. In three separate matters, respondent neglected and abandoned the interests of his clients; failed to expedite the litigation consistent with the interests of his clients; failed to adequately communicate with his clients; failed to adequately protect their interests upon withdrawal; and refused to return their files and their fees. In one of these matters, respondent failed to properly withdraw from the representation. Finally, the panel found that respondent commingled the advanced fees in his non-trust, non IOLTA business account; and failed to file an answer to the Grievance Administrator=s request for investigation

Respondent=s conduct was in violation of Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.3; 1.4; 1.15; 1.16(d); and 8.1(a)(2).

At a subsequent discipline hearing, respondent failed to appear and, in accordance with MCR 9.115(H), the hearing panel ordered that respondent=s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended in the interim, effective January 31, 2006. On February 24, 2006, the panel ordered that respondent=s license be revoked, retroactive to January 31, 2006. The panel further ordered respondent to pay restitution in the aggregate amount of $2,600.00 and assessed costs in the amount of $2,198.85.

1 Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since January 31, 2006. See Notice of Interim Suspension, dated February 7, 2006.

 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.