Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (Pending Appeal)

Case No. 04-46-GA Notice Issued: April 15, 2005 Gary L. Davis, P 30208, Imlay City, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board St. Clair County Hearing Panel #2.

1. Suspension - 90 Days 2. Effective April 14, 2005 The respondent appeared at the hearing but was found to be in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on that default, the panel found that respondent, in a civil suit, failed to advise his client, a business entity, that the trial had been rescheduled; that the plaintiff had filed two motions for default judgment; and that the court had ordered the client to pay $1,000.00 in costs to the plaintiff. Respondent also failed to appear for a hearing; failed to file an objection to the plaintiff=s notice of entry of default judgment; failed to advise his client that a default judgment had been entered against it; failed to file a motion to set aside the default; failed to adequately communicate with his client and respond to its reasonable requests for information regarding the status of the matter. Finally, respondent misrepresented to the client=s representative and successor counsel that he was unaware that a default judgment had been entered and that the plaintiff had requested a writ of garnishment to satisfy the judgment.

Respondent=s misconduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 3.2; and 8.4(a)-(c). The panel ordered that respondent=s license be suspended for 90 days and, if he provided proof within 20 days of the commencement of his suspension that he has paid at least $10,000.00 to his former client, the panel would entertain a motion to vacate its order and issue a supplemental order suspending his license for 30 days.

On April 11, 2005, the Grievance Administrator filed a timely conditional petition for review which will be scheduled for hearing before the Attorney Discipline Board.

 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.