Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

DISMISSAL Case No. 99-60-GA Dani K. Liblang, P-33713, Birmingham, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #68.

1. Dismissal. 2. Effective October 13, 2000. The Grievance Administrator filed Formal Complaint 99-60--GA on May 4, 1999, charging that respondent had committed acts of professional misconduct, specifically: In three matters, respondent failed to enter into a written fee agreement with her clients and, in two of those matters, failed to set the method by which the fee was to be determined. Respondent was also alleged to have charged, collected or attempted to collect an excessive fee; improperly computed the amount of a contingent fee owed to her; failed to assist the Grievance Administrator in the investigation of a request for investigation; and knowingly made a false statement to her client regarding her client=s matter. Further, respondent was alleged to have failed to appear on behalf of her clients in three matters and, in two matters, failed to respond to client inquiries regarding the status of their matters or discuss strategy with her clients. Respondent was alleged to be in violation of MCR 8.121; MCR 9.103; MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and (6); MCR 9.113; and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a)-(c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4; 1.5(a)-(c); 3.2; 8.1(a) and (b); and 8.4(a)-(c).

The hearing panel conducted hearings on June 29, 1999 and October 27, 1999 and filed a report concluding that professional misconduct had not been established. On September 18, 2000, the panel entered an order dismissing Formal Complaint 99-140-GA.

On June 8, 2000, the Grievance Administrator filed a petition for review, and on June 12, 2000, complainant Nancy L. McGunn also filed a petition for review. The Attorney Discipline Board held a review hearing on August 17, 2000 and entered an order on September 21, 2000 affirming the hearing panel=s dismissal. No costs were assessed against respondent.

 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.