MEMBERS REV. MICHAEL MURRAY CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH
VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY
SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR
JOHN W. INHULSEN
KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR.
LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD ANNA FRUSHOUR
211 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1410
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313·963·5553 I FAX: 313·963-5571
ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTION/STISECRETARY
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION (By Consent)
Case No. 18-40-GA
Notice Issued: February 5,2019
Michael H. Fortner, P 46541, Farmington Hills, Michigan, by the Attorney DiSCipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #63.
Reprimand, Effective January 30, 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. Based upon respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1( c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of his client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; knowingly disobeyed a court order or rule of tribunal with no valid assertion that the obligation did not exist, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); 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); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a); and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and 9.104(1). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(2) and (3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Respondent was also ordered to pay restitution totaling $650.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $784.29.
# a Mark A. Armitage Executive Director