MEMBERS REV. MICHAEL MURRAY CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH VICE·CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY
SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR.
LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD ANNA FRUSHOUR
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 L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATO R
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTION/STISECRETARY
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 18-46-GA; 18-97-GA; 18-123-GA
Notice Issued: June 17, 2019
#14.
David Blake, P 73544, Sarasota, Florida, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel
Suspension - 179 Days, Effective June 15, 2019
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 admissions to the allegations that he committed acts of professional misconduct in his handling of multiple cases involving, amongst other things, automobile accident injuries, excessive force claims, and possible claims against the City of Detroit after a police involved shooting death.
Based upon respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to provide competent representation to his clients by handling legal matters without preparation adequate in the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (b); failed to provide competent representation to his clients by neglecting legal matters entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1( c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of his clients through reasonably available means permitted by the law and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 1.2; failed to conduct himself with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4{b); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interest upon terminating the representation, in violation of MRPC 1. 16{d ); failed to exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice to his clients, in violation of MRPC 2.1; brought and/or defended or asserted or controverted an issue or proceeding that was frivolous, in violation of MRPC 3.1; did not make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation in the interest of his clients or to file a complaint within the statute of limitations, in violation of MRPC 3.2; and failed to appropriately supervise an attorney under his direct supervisory authority, in violation of MRPC 5.1. Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(c).
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 and that respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1, 948.13. �g� Executive Director