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.H OTCHKISS, MD
ANNA FRUSHOUR MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER
STATE OF MICHIGAN 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 ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMIN/STRAT OR
ALL YSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTION/STISECRETARY
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS
Case No. 19-24-GA
Notice Issued: October 31,2019
Adam C. Reddick, P 71543, Bay City, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #3.
Suspension - 30 Days, Effective October 25, 2019.
Respondent appeared at the hearing but was in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on respondent's default, the hearing panel found that he committed professional misconduct in his representation of a client in an appeal of a criminal conviction for domestic violence. Respondent filed a claim of appeal, but it was later discovered it should have been filed as an application for leave to appeal. Respondent failed to file an appeal brief by the due date and the court subsequently scheduled a review hearing. Without his client's permission, respondent signed a stipulated order of dismissal withdrawing the claim of appeal and dismissing the case. Respondent failed to file a delayed application for leave to appeal before the time expired to do so and he failed to advise his client that the application was not filed.
The panel found that respondent handled a legal matter without adequate preparation, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (b); neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of the client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, 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); and knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1 (a)(2). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3).
The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law be suspended for a period of 30 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,159.52. Jt:dt a. Mk A. Armitage Executive Director