Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

NOTICE OF REVOCATION AND RESTITUTION Case Nos. 97-243-GA; 97-271-FA Arthur Borja, P-45771, Grand Rapids, Michigan, by Attorney Discipline Board Kent County Hearing Panel #5.

1) Revocation; 2) Effective December 5, 2002. The first complainant paid respondent $500 to represent her in matters involving a bankruptcy and/or a conservatorship. The panel found, by default, that respondent neglected and abandoned the matter; failed to promptly release the client file or refund the unearned fee; failed to answer the Request for Investigation; and failed to notify the complainant of his disqualification from the practice of law.1.

The second complainant paid respondent $500 to represent his wife in an immigration matter. The panel found, by default, that respondent neglected and abandoned the matter; failed to refund the unearned fee or release the client file; failed to answer the Request for Investigation; and failed to notify the complainant of his disqualification from the practice of law. Respondent also failed to answer the Formal Complaints and failed to appear at the disciplinary hearing.

Respondent's conduct was found to be in violation of MCR 9.103(C); MCR 9.104(1)-(4), (7) and (9); MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2); MCR 9.119(A)-(C) and (E); MCL 600.916, MSA 27A.916; and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4; 1.5(a); 1.16(d); 3.2; 3.4(c); 5.5(a); 8.1(b); and 8.4(a)-(c).

The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be revoked for the third time, effective December 5, 2002, consecutive to the revocations already in effect. The panel also ordered that respondent make restitution to the complainants in the total amount of $1,300 and return all client files and documents to the complainants. Costs were assessed in the amount of $170.65. 1. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days effective April 30, 1997, and for 180 days effective June 20, 1997. His licensed was also revoked in two prior matters, effective December 2, 1997 and December 5, 1997.

 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.