Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN

KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER PETER A. SMIT

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR

ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147

PHONE: 313-963-5553 š FAX: 313-963-5571

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION Case No. 18-37-GA Notice Issued: March 30, 2020 Ernest Friedman, P 26642, Farmington Hills, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #57.

Suspension - 60 Days, effective March 25, 2020 After proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.115 and based on the evidence presented by the parties at the hearings held in this matter, the hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he neglected a client’s file, failed to adequately prepare for trial, and failed to explain a cost issue to his client, which eventually led to the dismissal of the case. The panel found that the dismissal was caused by respondent’s neglect, thus, asking the client to pay approximately $7,400 in costs necessary to re-file the lawsuit, was improper and contrary to justice, ethics and honesty.

The panel found that respondent handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1(b); neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).

The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 60 days. Respondent filed a petition for review and request for stay and the discipline ordered by the hearing panel was automatically stayed pursuant to MCR 9.115(K). Upon review, the Board affirmed the hearing panel’s order on October 8, 2019. Respondent filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied on March 4, 2020. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $4,353.11.

/s/ Mark A. Armitage Executive Director

 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.