MEMBERS JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY
SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRAT OR
JOHN W. INHULSEN
KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD
MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER PETER A. SMIT
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147 PHONE: 313-963-5553 I FAX: 313-963-5571
ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 19-109-GA
Notice Issued: February 7, 2020
Karyn E. Tomczyk, P 76403, Gladwin, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Genesee County Hearing Panel #2.
Reprimand, Effective February 1, 2020
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained respondent's admissions to the allegations that she committed acts of professional misconduct by failing to provide competent representation during a client's attempt to legally adopt his grandson.
Based upon respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to provide competent representation to a client, in violation of MRPC 1.1; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are accomplished, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, and good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $805.37.
. ark A. Ar amitage Executive Director