NOTICE OF REVOCATION (By Consent)
Case Nos. 01-35-GA; 01-52-FA; 01-79-GA; 01-99-FA Notice Issued: November 8, 2001 William D. Haynes, P-14780, Southfield, Michigan by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #58.
1) Revocation; 2) Effective November 8, 2001. The respondent and the Grievance Administrator submitted a stipulation for consent order of discipline in accordance with MCR 9.115(f)(5). The stipulation was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and was accepted by a hearing panel. Respondent entered a plea of no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct contained in Formal Complaints 01-35-GA; 01-52-FA; 01-79-GA; and 01-99-FA, specifically: In a civil lawsuit, after filing a default against the defendants for failing to appear, respondent failed to prepare and submit an order to the court which resulted in the case being dismissed; failed to advise his client that the case had been dismissed; failed to respond to his client's phone calls; and failed to communicate with his client regarding his case. In a divorce matter, respondent failed to submit any further documentation to the pension plan administrator after receiving notice that the QDRO had to be corrected; and failed to respond to his client's requests regarding the status of her matter. In a retaliation/defamation action, respondent failed to provide his client with competent representation by filing the initial complaint in state court; and, when the matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, respondent failed to advise his client that he was suspended from practice in that court. Respondent also failed to advise his client that he was unable to file a response on her behalf to the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants. In a wrongful discharge matter, respondent neglected the matter; failed to file a response to the defendant's motion for summary disposition; and failed to appear for the hearing on the motion. Additionally, respondent failed to deposit retainer fees into a trust account until earned in three matters; and failed to refund unearned fees in four matters. Respondent also failed to take any action on behalf of his clients in two matters.
Further, respondent failed to appear at the offices of the Attorney Grievance Commission in response to two subpoenas issued by the Attorney Grievance Commission; failed to respond to written requests for information about the status of two matters from the Attorney Grievance Commission; and failed to file answers to four requests for investigation and two formal complaints served by upon him by the Grievance Administrator.
Respondent=s conduct was alleged to be in violation of MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and (7); MCR 9.113(A); MCR 9.113(B)(2); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a) and (c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 1.5(a); 1.15(a); 1.16(d); 3.2; 8.1(b); and 8.4(a) and (c).
The parties further stipulated to the entry of an order revoking respondent=s license to practice law in Michigan. Costs were assessed in the amount of $375.05.