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 MICmGAN 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 ASSOCIA TE COUNSEL
SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRAT OR
ALL YSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case Nos. 19-44-GA; 19-45-JC
Notice Issued: November 15, 2019
Matthew Brian Chaiken, P 74538, Ann Arbor, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #1.
Suspension - 60 Days, Effective November 13, 2019
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 admission that he was convicted by guilty plea of disorderly person, a misdemeanor, in violation of Pittsfield Township Code 307 ยง14-3, in Pittsfield Township v Matthew Brian Chaiken, 14A-1 District Court Case No. 181-1496-0M. The stipulation also contained respondent's admission that he was convicted as set forth in the Judgment of Conviction, to the factual statements set forth in the formal complaint, and his admission to the misconduct charged in two subparagraphs of the formal complaint as referenced below.
Based on respondent's conviction, admissions and the stipulation of the parties, it has been established that respondent 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); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in further conduct that violated a criminal law of a state, that being MCR 333.7402(2)(a)(v), also in violation of MCR 9.104(5).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 60 days, effective November 13, 2019. Additionally, the panel ordered that respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $845.59.