Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS HANLEY M. GURWIN CnAIRHAN REMONA A. GREEN VlCECHAIRY*N

.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JOHN F. VAN BOLT WClnW W R E C l M 6 GENEML

THEOWRE P. ZEGOUW SECRETARY HON. MARTIN M. W O M f f ROBERT S. HARRISON LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, M.D.

PATRICK J. KEATING

-NOTICE OF SUSPENSION

ADB 109-87 John J. O'Briea, P 18384, Birmingham, MI 48009-2835 by Attorney Discipline Board Oakland County Hearing Panel #15. 1) Suspension - two and one-half years;

2) Effective January 14, 1988. The Attorney Grievance Commission and a hearing panel approved a consent order of discipline filed by the respondent and the Grievance Administrator in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(S). The respondent plead -nolo contendere to charges based upon the decision and recomendations filed in the Michigan Supreme Court by the Judicial Tenure Commission that respondent knowingly made false statements or reports on certain credit

applications. A separate count charged that respondent issued checks totaling $2172.75 with knowledge that there was insufficient funds in the account. Respondent's conduct was alleged to be in violation of MCR 9.104(1-5) and Canons 1 and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A)(1,3-6) and DR 9-101(C).

Following the filing of that complaint on June 24, 1987, the parties stipulated that the proceedinis should be stayed pending resolution of the proceedings in the Supreme Court or a verdict rendered in separate criminal proceedings instituted in the United States District Court. On January 14, 1988, respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan of the crime of making a false credit application in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1014 and respondent's license to practice law was automatically suspended in accordance with MCR 9.120. The parties stipulated that respondent's suspension for two and one-half years include theautomatic suspension which commenced January 14, 1988. Costs

in the amount of 9116.24.

D t

DEC 1 41 988

 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.