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

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR

KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATO

R

ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER

LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD

ANNA FRUSH OUR MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER

333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226·3147 PHONE: 313·963·5553 I FAX: 313·963-5571

OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER

JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTION/STISECRETARY

www.adbmlch.org

r,lOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)

Case Nos. 19-70-JC; 19-71-GA

Notice Issued: October 9, 2019

James E. Hall, P 41704, Toledo, Ohio, by the Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #4.

Reprimand, Effective September 28, 2019

The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand, 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 admission that he was convicted of (1) Attempted assaulting/resisting/obstructing police officer, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCl 750.81 (D}(1}(A); and (2) operating while impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCl 257.625(3}-A, in a matter titled State of Michigan v James E. Hall, 1st District Court Case No. 17-4169-FY. Additionally, the amended stipulation contains respondent's admission that he failed to timely report his convictions to the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Attorney Discipline Board, as alleged in the formal complaint.

Based upon respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to report his two convictions, in violation of MCR 9.120(A} and (B); and engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1) and (4); and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $756.96. '- a Il-A- -,;t:=:- :" 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.