Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

NOTICE OF SUSPENSIONS (By Consent)

Case Nos. 93-127-GA; 95-59-GA Brunetta Brandy, P-32863, Detroit, Michigan, by Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #20.

1) Suspension - thirty (30) days; 2) Suspension - three (3) years; 3) Both effective January 5, 1996.

Formal Complaint 93-127-GA: Respondent was retained to represent a man in child support and appellate paternity proceedings. Tri-County Hearing Panel #19 found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondent neglected the child support matter, and refused to execute a stipulation for substitution of attorneys or to file a motion to withdraw upon her discharge in the appellate paternity proceedings. Respondent's conduct was found to be in violation of MCR 9.104(1)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.3; 1.15(b); 1.16(a)(3); 1.16(d); 3.2; and 8.4(a)and(c).

Formal Complaint 95-59-GA: Respondent was retained to represent the plaintiff in a personal injury action. A settlement was reached whereby the co-defendants agreed to pay plaintiff a combined settlement of $35,000. The defendants issued to respondent two checks totalling $35,000, both of which were made payable to the order of plaintiff and respondent. Respondent deposited the checks into her client trust account. Respondent pled no contest to allegations that she withdrew funds from her trust account, misappropriating approximately $5,000 which was due her client; commingled client funds with her personal funds; and charged her client an excessive fee. Respondent's conduct was alleged to be in violation of MCR 8.121; MCR 9.104(1)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(a); 1.15(a)-(c); 3.4(c); and 8.4(a)-(c).

The Formal Complaints were consolidated before Tri-County Hearing Panel #20. The parties stipulated that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Michigan for thirty days regarding Formal Complaint 93-127-GA and for three years regarding Formal Complaint 95-59-GA, to run concurrently. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,070.96.

 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.