MEMBERS LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD CHAIRPERSON ALAN GERSHEL VICE-CHAIRPERSON REV. DR. LOUIS J. PRUES SECRETARY PETER A. SMIT LINDA M. ORLANS
JASON M. TURKISH ANDREAS SIDIROPOULOS, MD KATIE STANLEY TISH VINCENT
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 Nos. 22-58-JC; 22-59-GA Notice Issued: October 11, 2022 James A. Murray, III, P 85490, Southfield, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #52
Reprimand, Effective October 8, 2022 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Revised Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand with Conditions, 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 admission that he was convicted by guilty plea of impaired driving, second offense, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.6256B, in People v James Arthur Murray, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 2280129-FH.
Based on respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and, violated the standards or rules of professional responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4).
In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $759.41.