Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

NOTICE OF REVOCATION AND RESTITUTION Case Nos. 91-156-GA; 91-169-FA Jeffrey B. Friedland, P31132, Southfield, Michigan, by Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #75.

1) Revocation; 2) Effective October 2, 1991. Respondent failed to answer the formal complaints and failed to appear at the hearings held in Bloomfield Hills on October 23, and December 5, 1991. Respondent's defaults were entered and the panel determined that the defaults established the allegations of the formal complaints.

Respondent was retained to prosecute an insurance claim, accepted a $200 retainer fee, and settled the case. Respondent received an insurance company draft in the amount of $7368 made payable to the client and respondent as his attorney, but forged his client's signature to the draft; deposited the draft into his personal account, commingling the funds with his own; failed to pay his client the $7368; misappropriated the $7368; and failed to answer the request for investigation.

Respondent was retained to represent an individual in legal proceedings and was paid the sum of $450 as his fee, but failed to take any action on his client's behalf; failed to return the unearned fee; failed to answer the inquiries of his client; failed to return the client's documents; and failed to answer the request for investigation.

Respondent was retained in a divorce matter, to correct deficiencies in the judgment of divorce and to obtain injunctive relief on his client's behalf, but failed to institute any post- judgment proceedings on his client's behalf; and failed to answer the request for investigation.

Respondent's conduct was found to be in violation of MCR 9.104 (1-4,7); MCR 9.103(C); MCR 9.113(B)(2); and the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, i.l(c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 3.2; 1.15(a-c); 8.1(b); 8.4(a-c). The panel ordered that respondent's license be revoked retroactive to October 2, 1991, the effective date of his prior suspension, and ordered respondent to make restitution to his three clients in the total amount of $9468. Costs were assessed in the amount of $373.96.

 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.