MEMBERS MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. CHAIRPERSON LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD VICE-CHAIRPERSON REV. DR. LOUIS J. PRUES SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER
PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS JASON M. TURKISH
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR — KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL — SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR —
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER — JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY —
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147
PHONE: 313-963-5553
www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 21-65-GA Notice Issued: January 31, 2022 Adam J. Gantz, P 58558, Farmington Hills, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #61
Reprimand, Effective January 28, 2022 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), that was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he neglected his representation of clients in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy matter to the extent that the bankruptcy trustee had to release funds intended for the clients’ mortgage to their unsecured creditors.
Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1(b); failed to provide competent representation to his client by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); and, failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(2)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $772.00.