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
ANNA FRUSHOUR MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147 PHONE: 313-963-5553 I FAX: 313-963-5571
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR
ALL YSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION (By Consent)
Case No. 19-104-GA
Notice Issued: January 20, 2020
Matthew Abel, P 38876, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #11.
Reprimand, Effective January 9, 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 factual statements and allegations of professional misconduct contained in the formal complaint. Specifically, that respondent committed professional misconduct when he agreed, at the request of a long time former client, to act as an escrow agent for a Bitcoin and cash transaction between a buyer and a seller who owed respondent's former client money. Respondent negligently relied upon information from his former client that the seller had transferred the Bitcoins to the buyer when he had not actually done so and, based on that reliance, respondent released the escrow funds from his IOL TA account.
Based upon respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to hold client funds in connection with a representation in an IOL TA or non-IOL TA trust account, and failed to appropriately safeguard such funds, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(2) and (4).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded with a condition relevant to the established misconduct and that he pay restitution totaling $94,050. Costs were assessed in the amount of $773.25. 'b�a
Mark A. Armitage Executive Director