MEM6ERS ROBERT S. HARRISON CHAIRMAN YANLEY M. GURWIN VICE CHAIRMAN GHARLES C. VINCENT. M.D. SECRETARY HON. MARTIN M.D OCTOROFF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 6 GENERAL COUNSEL --
SUITE 1260 333 W FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226 • Area Code 313 963-5553
REMONA A. GREEN
PATRICK J. KEATING THEODORE P. ZEGOURAS
NOTICE OF REVOCATION ADB 182-87 E l g i n C. Wheeler, P 31456, 5130 Campfire T r a i l , Apt. B , F l o r i s s a n t , MO 63033 by Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board Wayne County Hearing Panel 813.
1 ) Revocation; 2) E f f e c t i v e Apr i l 7, 1988. The Respondent f a i l e d t o answer t he Formal Complaint and f a i l e d t o appear a t a hea r ing on December 17 , 1987. The h e a r i n g pane l found t h a t Respondent was paid a r e t a i n e r f e e i n t h e amount of $2300 i n November 1983. Respondent agreed i n w r i t i n g t o f i l e and a r g u e a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l on b e h a l f of a c r i m i n a l defendant and, i f unsucces s fu l , t o f i l e an appea l t o t he Court o f Appeals and t o t h e Supreme Court of Michigan. Respondent f a i l e d t o provide l e g a l s e r v i c e s a s agreed, f a i l e d t o communicate w i th h i s c l i e n t and f a i l e d t o r e t u r n t h e unused p o r t i o n of t h e f e e
which was paid t o him. Respondent a l s o f a i l e d t o answer t h e Request f o r I n v e s t i g a t i o n submit ted by t h e c l i e n t and served by t h e Grievance Adminis t ra tor . Respondent's conduct was found t o be i n v i o l a t i o n of MCR 9.104(1-4); MCR 9.103(C); MCR 9.113(B)(2) and Canons 1 , 2 6 and 7 of t h e Code of P ro fe s s iona l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y , DR 1-102(A)(5-6); DR 2-llO(A)(3); DR 6-101(A)(2-3) and DR 7-101(A)(3). Costs were a s se s sed i n t h e amount of $100.32.
I n i t s assessment of d i s c i p l i n e , t h e pane l cons idered Respondent's p r i o r suspens ion f o r 120 days e f f e c t i v e December 12, 1986. The p a n e l r u l e d t h a t i t c o u l d n o t s e e "any s e r i o u s d i f f e r e n c e between t h e respondent who accep t s a r e t a i n e r , and does no t formal ly a c t f o r . t h e c l i e n t , and the a t t o r n e y who s t e a l s money from t h e c l i e n t . . .The d i s c i p l i n e should be t h e same a s i f t h e respondent , i n f a c t , misappropr ia ted money."
-