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 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 ASSOCIATIE COUNSEL

SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRA TOR

ALL YSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER

OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER

JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY

www.adbmlch.org

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)

Case No. 18-98-GA

Notice Issued: April 4, 2019

Kevin P. Hammons, P 46497, Farmington Hills, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #4.

Reprimand, Effective March 29, 2019

The 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 during his own divorce action when he did not disclose an additional Charles Schwab Investment account in his response to the opposing party's interrogatories and request for production of documents, notwithstanding that this account held substantial funds; and when he did not disclose in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter, Schedule B, the existence of his then pending class action suit against the City of Detroit regarding an employment matter in which he was a plaintiff, and failed to disclose on his Schedule B that the value was unknown or otherwise yet to be determined.

Based upon respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent, in pretrial procedure, failed to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party, in violation of MRPC 3.4(d). 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 panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,549.44.

/1 . f, ,Ip {/ a /; 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.