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 MICIDGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

211 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1410

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226--3236 PHONE: 313·963·5553 I FAX: 313·963-5571

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR

KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR

ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER

OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER

JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONiSTISECRETARY

www.adbmlch.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION (By Consent)

Case No. 18-103-GA

Notice Issued: November 2,2018

Bart R. Frith, P 39541, Vermontville, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #6.

Suspension - One Year, Effective November 1,2018.

The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a 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 committed profeSSional misconduct during his representation of numerous indigent criminal defendants in appeals of their criminal convictions contrary to certain standards of practice imposed by the Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System (MAACS).

Specifically, the panel found that respondent neglected legal matters which were entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of his clients,i n violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in the representation of his clients, in violation of MRPC 1.3; and violated Minimum Standard for Indigent Criminal Appellate Defense Services Standard 5, as adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court, by abandoning client appeals. Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.1 04( 1 )-(3).

The panel o "Jrdered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for a ts we assessed in the amount of $764.96.

Deputy 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.