Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL B. RIZIK, .IR.

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 MICIDGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147 PHONE: 313-963-5553 I FAX: 313-963ยท5571

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR

KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR

ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER

OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER

JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY

ww.w adbmlch.org

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)

Case No. 19-52-GA

Notice Issued: November 6,2019

David H. Jarvis, P 44702, Novi, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #68.

Reprimand, Effective November 1, 2019

Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended 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 plea of no contest to the allegations that he committed acts of professional misconduct during his representation of his client, Delaney Equity Group, LLC, during an inquiry by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, from April to September 2015.

Based upon respondent's plea and the amended stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to act with diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b). Respondent was also found to have violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (c) and MCR 9.104(1) and (4).

In accordance with the amended stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,109.47.

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.