Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

FINAL NOTICE OF REVOCATION AND RESTITUTION Case No. 04-122-GA Notice Issued: October 30, 2006 William D. Hunter, P 30911, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board modifying Tri-County Hearing Panel #15's order of suspension and increasing discipline to a revocation.

1.

2.

Revocation

Effective December 7, 2005 1

The hearing panel found that respondent failed to file a witness list or jury instructions in a criminal matter. In a separate matter, respondent failed to obtain probate court permission before selling an asset of an estate, and falsely stated in a purchase agreement that his client had been appointed personal representative. Finally, in a third matter, respondent entered into a business transaction with his client without giving his client a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel.

Respondent=s conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.7(b); 1.8(a); 3.3(a)(2); and 8.4(a) and (c).

The hearing panel ordered that respondent=s license be suspended for three years and that he pay restitution in the amount of $10,000.00.

Respondent filed a timely petition for review and motion for stay of discipline and the Grievance Administrator filed a cross-petition for review. The Board scheduled the matter for hearing but denied respondent=s motion for a stay of discipline. On August 11, 2006, the Board issued an order affirming the panel=s findings of misconduct and restitution but increasing the discipline from a three-year suspension to a revocation of respondent=s license.

Respondent filed a timely motion for reconsideration and stay of discipline which were both denied by the Board on September 28, 2006. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $4,339.35.

1 Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since June 1, 2003. Please see Notice of Suspension and Restitution, dated February 26, 2003.

 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.