Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

FINAL NOTICE OF REVOCATION Case Nos. 99-146-GA; 99-157-FA Issued: October 20, 2000 James L. Edmonds, P-36683, Flint, Michigan by the Attorney Discipline Board, increasing Tri-County Hearing Panel #4's order of discipline from a three year suspension to revocation.

1) 2)

Revocation; Effective May 19, 2000.

1

Respondent James L. Edmonds failed to answer Formal Complaint 99-146-GA and supplemental complaint 99-157-FA. Respondent also failed to appear at the public hearing conducted on January 11, 2000.

Based upon respondent=s default, the panel found that the alleged misconduct had been established, to wit: That respondent violated previous orders of discipline issued by the Attorney Discipline Board by practicing law while his license was suspended; knowingly made false statements in his answers to requests for investigation served upon him by the Grievance Administrator; and failed to file answers to the formal complaints. Respondent=s conduct was deemed to be in violation of MCR 9.104(1)-(4), (6), (7) and (9); MCR 9.113(A); MCR 9.119(E)(1) and (3); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(c); 3.3(a)(1); 8.1(a); and 8.4(a)-(c). On April 27, 2000, the hearing panel ordered that respondent=s license to practice law be suspended for three years.

On May 4, 2000, the Grievance Administrator filed a conditional petition for review. On May 12, 2000, respondent also filed a petition for review along with a request for a stay of discipline. The Attorney Discipline Board denied respondent=s petition for a stay of discipline and conducted a review hearing on August 17, 2000. Respondent did not attend that hearing.

On September 26, 2000, the Board issued an order increasing respondent=s discipline to a revocation. Costs were assessed in the amount of $387.37.

1 Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law since July 7, 1998. See Notice of Suspension, dated October 7, 1998.

 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.