Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS KENNETH L. LEWIS

CHAIRPERSON WALlACE D. RILEY VICE·CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL R. KRAMER C.H. DUDLEY, M.D. NANCY A. WONCH GRANT J. GRUEL DIETHER H. HAENICKE THEODORE J. ST. ANTOINE RONALD L. STEFFENS

STATE OF MICHIGAN

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

JOHN F. VAN BOlT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MARK A ARMITAGE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

JENNIFER M. PEnY LEGAL ASSISTANT

719 GRISWOlD STREET SUITE 1910 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226

PHONE: 313·963·5553 FAX: 313·963·5571

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND Case No. 96-94-GA Teresa Hendricks, P-46500, Grand Rapids, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board, affirming Ingham County Hearing Panel #Ts order of reprimand.

1. Reprimand. 2. Effective May 16, 2000. Respondent was employed by a law firm which had appeared as a co-counsel for the plaintiff in a personal injury action instituted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. At the conclusion of the firm's representation, respondent's employer presented an itemized statement of costs to co-counsel in Iowa in June 1993 which included an entry in the amount of $13,280.24 for "Borja Industries." The hearing panel found that respondent was aware of the fact that the entry for Borja Industries was a fabrication and that her failure to report her employer's misconduct constituted a violation of MCR 9.1 03(C); MCR 9.104(1 )-(4) and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 8.3(a) and 8.4(a)-(c).

The hearing panel ordered that respondent should be reprimanded, noting in its report on discipline the mitigating effect of respondent's relative inexperience in the practice of law at the time the misconduct occurred, her participation in pro bono legal programs and her otherwise unblemished reputation in the legal community.

The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed petitions for review. On April 27, 1999, the Attorney Discipline Board entered an order affirming the hearing panel's order. Both parties filed applications for leave to appeal which were denied by the Michigan Supreme Court in orders en~~,d May 16, 2000. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,432.74.

//~i ', . , .. I ~ \ (L;~ John !iVan Bolt Date[i MAY 19 2Wl

F:\WPDa'a\NOT'CES\Repnmand\HENDRICKS 96·94·GA.wpd

 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.