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 MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR.

LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD ANNA FRUSHOUR

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1100

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3141 PHONE: 313·963-5553 I FAX: 313·963-5511

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR

KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRA TOR

ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER

OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER

JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION (By Consent)

Case No. 18-131-GA

Notice Issued: June 17, 2019

Francois M. Nabwangu, P 61388, Brooklyn, New York, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri­ County Hearing Panel #15.

Disbarment, Effective June 14, 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 pleas of no contest to the factual allegations set forth in the first amended formal complaint and pleas of no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct contained in the amended complaint, which alleged that respondent committed professional misconduct when he mishandled funds entrusted to him, made false statements during a disciplinary matter, improperly managed his trust account, practiced while suspended, and, among other things, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty and fraud.

Based upon respondent's pleas of no contest and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent neglected a matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of his clients, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed of the status of the matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); represented a client when that representation was materially limited by the lawyer's responsibility to another client, or third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b); held funds in an IOLT A that were not client nor third person funds, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); failed to hold client or third person funds in an IOL TA or non-IOL TA account, and failed to hold property of a client or third person in connection with a representation separate from a lawyer's own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); in the course of representing a client, knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a third person, in violation of MRPC 4.1; in connection with a disciplinary matter, knowingly made a false statement of material fact and knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1( a)( 1) and (2); made a knowing misrepresentation of any fact or circumstance surrounding a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(6); failed to answer a request for

June 17, 2019

STATE OF MICHIGAN. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

Page 2

investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113, in violation of MCR 9.104(7); and violated an order of suspension by holding himself out as an attorney and practicing while suspended, in violation of MCR 9.104(9). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3); and MRPC 8.4(a)­ (c).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan, and pay restitution totaling $5,000.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,062.09. -t1;«�?1 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.