MEMWU Roems . HARRISON OuUIlurr rULM M. GUAWlN .I C E w w ARLES C. VINCENT. M.D. S EulnAFn HON. MARflN M. m A O f f
STATE OF MICHIGAN a Bi$tiplint
JOHN F. VAN 8611 mmcri lscr rwr ~ C O U N I E L
REMONA A. GREEN PATRICK J. KEAflNG THEODORE P Z E m U w
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION F i l e No. DP 179/84 David M. Ju tkowi tz , P 25885, 1812 Penobscot Building, D e t r o i t , M I 48226 by t h e Michigan Supreme Court denying Respondent's Appl ica t ion f o r Leave t o Appeal. 1 ) Suspension - 90 days;
2 ) E f f e c t i v e J u l y 25, 1988. .- The Respondent w a s found t o have neglec ted l e g a l ma t t e r s entrusted-% t o him by f o u r c l i e n t s . The hear ing panel found t h a t t h e Respondent f a i l e d t o s eek t h e re ins ta tement of a p o l i c e b r u t a l i t y s u i t which w a s d i smissed
f o r Respondent's f a i l u r e t o appear a t a p r e - t r i a l hearing; he f a i l e d t o a p p e a r o n h i s c l i e n t s ' b e h a l f a t a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e L i q u o r C o n t r o l Comiss ion ; he f a i l e d t o make t imely d i s t r i b u t i o n of e s t a t e proceeds t o t h e h e i r s of a d e c e d e n t ' s e s t a t e ; and he f a i l e d t o f i l e a n answer on h i s c l i e n t ' s behalf i n a c i v i l ac t ion . Respondent's conduct was a l l e g e d t o be i n v i o l a t i o n of MCR 9 .104(1-4) , Canons 1, 6 and 7 of t h e Code of P ro fe s s iona l Respons ib i l i t y , DR 1-102(A)(5,6); DR 6-101(A)(1-3) and DR 7-lOl(A)(l-3)-
The hear ing panel ru l ed t h a t Respondent had f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h h i s e l i g i b i l i t y f o r probat ion i n accordance wi th MCR 9.121(C) b u t cons idered t h e mi t iga t ing e f f e c t of Respondenr's emotional s t r e s s . The panel a l s o considered a p r i o r suspension of fo r ty - f ive days i n 1981. The suspens ion imposed by t h e hear ing panel was a f f i rmed by the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board and became e f f e c t i v e upon t h e e n t r y of a n o r d e r i n t h e Supreme C o u r t denying Respondent's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l eave t o appeal. Costs were a s se s sed i n t h e amount-of $1327.63.