Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS REV. MICHAEL MURRAY CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH

VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY

SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR

KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIA TE COUNSEL

SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMIN/STRA TOR

ALL YSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER

MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR.

LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD ANNA FRUSHOUR

333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226·3147 PHONE: 313·963·5553 I FAX: 313·963·5571

OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER

JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTION/STISECRETARY

www.adbmlch.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION (By Consent)

Case No. 19-56-GA

Notice Issued: September 24,2019

RogerM. Maceroni,P 45744,S helby Township,M ichigan,b y the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #104.

Suspension - 60 Days, Effective September 19,2019

The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5),w hich was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained respondent's admissions to the allegations that he committed acts of professional misconduct in his representation of a client for whom he was hired to resolve a traffic ticket.

Based on respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties,t he panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of the client,i n violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter,i n violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the representation,i n violation of MRPC 1.4(b); and,e ngaged in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3).

 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.