Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

NOTICE OF REVOCATION AND RESTITUTION Case Nos. 99-149-GA; 99-171-FA Issued: May 10, 2000 June A. Porter, P-30589, Detroit, Michigan by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #9.

1) Revocation; 2) Effective May 9, 2000. 1 The respondent failed to answer Formal Complaint 99-149-GA and a default was entered. Formal Complaint 99-171-FA was filed and consolidated for hearing. Respondent pled no contest to the allegations in the consolidated complaints, to wit: Respondent, while suspended from the practice of law, filed an appearance, attended a preliminary examination, advised her client on matters relating to his plea and preliminary examination, signed a preliminary examination waiver and entered a not guilty plea on behalf of her client. In the same matter, respondent entered an appearance as attorney Terry Williams, forged attorney Williams' name to an appearance, waiver of preliminary examination and entry of a not guilty plea which she filed with the court; and appeared for the client's preliminary examination representing to the court that she was attorney Terry Williams. Respondent also failed to return unearned fees; failed to file an answer to the request for investigation from the Grievance Administrator and failed to file an answer to Formal Complaint 99-149-

GA. Respondent's conduct was found to be in violation of MCR 9.1 03(C); MCR 9.104(1)-(4), (7) and (9); MCR 9.113(A); MCR 9.113(B)(2); MCR 9.119(D)-(F); MCLA 600.916; MSA 27A.916; and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(c); 1.5(a); 1.15(b); 1.16(d); 3.3(a)(1) and (4); 3.3(b); 3.4(c); 5.5(a); 8.1 (b); 8.4(a)-(c).

The hearing panel considered the nature of respondent's misconduct, her prior discipline, including four suspensions, two reprimands and one admonishment, in arriving

at its decision to order a revocation of respondent's license. Respondent was ordered to make restitution to complainant in the amount of $1,500.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $544.17.

 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.