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 ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR

ALLY SON 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 RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY

ww.w adbmich.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)

Case Nos. 18-119-AI; 18-122-JC

Notice Issued: June 5, 2019

Mary J. Tatham, P 56667, Phoenix, Arizona, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #27.

Suspension - 179 Days, Effective August 20, 2018.

Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained respondent's admission that she was convicted by guilty plea of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class six felony, in violation of ARS §13-3415, and interference with a judicial proceeding (violating an order of protection), a misdemeanor, in violation of ARS §13-2810, in the matter of The State of Arizona v Mary Josephine Tatham, Maricopa County Superior of Arizona Case No. CR2018-133457 -001 SE. Based on respondent's conviction, admissions, and the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct by engaging in conduct that violated a criminal law of the State of Michigan, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 179 days, with an effective date retroactive to the date respondent's guilty plea was accepted by the court, and that she be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $903.59.

. () Mark A. Armitage Executive Director

 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.