Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION Case Nos. 90-75-GA; 90-109-FA Bernard Adams, Jr., P10033, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board affirming a hearing panel order of suspension.

1) Suspension - sixty (60) days; 2) Effective March 17, 1992. The hearing panel found that the allegations of misconduct contained in Formal Complaint 90-75-GA were established by the respondent's default. Formal Complaint 90-109-FA was dismissed without prejudice.

Respondent's license to practice law in Michigan was suspended for a period of thirty (30) days in case no. ADB 88-88, effective July 22, 1989. He filed an affidavit of compliance pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) with the Michigan Supreme Court on January 18, 1990, terminating that suspension. During the time he was suspended, respondent remained as attorney of record in six matters in various courts; filed appearances, motions and pleadings in those matters; appeared for pretrial conferences and trials; failed to timely notify tribunals, opposing counsel and clients of his suspension; failed to timely file proof with the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Attorney Discipline Board that he had notified his clients of his suspension; and filed a false affidavit of compliance with the Michigan Supreme Court.

Respondent's conduct was found to be in violation of MCR 9.104 (1-4,8,9); MCR 9.123(A); MCL 600.916, MSA 27A.916; and the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, 3.3(a)(1); 5.5(a); 8.4 (a-c). On September 20, 1990, the hearing panel issued its order of suspension for sixty days.

Respondent filed a petition for review seeking a reduction in the discipline imposed. In an order issued June 27, 1991, the Attorney Discipline Board affirmed the hearing panel order of suspension. Respondent filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied in an order issued January 31, 1992. Respondent filed a petition to modify effective date of suspension, which was granted by the Board in an order issued February 21, 1992. Costs were assessed in the amount of $958.58.

 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.