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 FRUSH OUR
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700
DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226-3147 PHONE: 313-963-5535 I FAX: 313-963-575 1
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 19-27-GA
Notice Issued: July 25, 2019
D. Michael Cherry, P 23882, Mt. Clemens, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri County Hearing Panel #103.
Reprimand, Effective July 19, 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 by engaging in conduct involving a violation of the criminal law.
Based on respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.1 04(2}; engaged in conduct involving violation of a the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on respondent's fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3); engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) and MRPC 8.4(a); and engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law of a state, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $757.75. <a
Mark A. Armitage Executive Director