MEMBERS ROBERT S. HARRISON CHAIRMAN
HANLN M. GURWIN VICE CHAIRMAN CHARLES C VINCENT. M.D. SECRETARY HON. MARTIN M. DOCTOROFF REMONA A. GREEN PATRICK J. KEATING THEODORE P. ZEGOURAS
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 6
GENERAL COUNSEL
-- SUITE 1260 333 W . FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHWN 48226
Area Code 313 963-5553
NOTICE OF REVOCATION ADB 215-87 Robert 0. Lindow, P. 0. Box 404, Marshal l , M I 49068 by Attorney Di sc ip l ine Board Be r r i en County Hearing Panel.
1) Revocation; 2) February 12 , 1988. The Respondent f a i l e d t o answer t h e Formal Complaint and f a i l e d t o appear a t a h e a r i n g on January 4, 1988 i n St. Joseph, Michigan. Based upon t h e d e f a u l t en t e r ed a g a i n s t t h e Respondent, t h e panel concluded t h a t p ro fe s s iona l misconduct was admi t ted as a l l e g e d i n t h e Formal Complaint, t o w i t ; t h a t t h e Respondent f a i l e d t o c a r r y o u t a c o n t r a c t f o r employment i n an adop t ion ma t t e r ; agreed t o defend a c l i e n t i n a n automobile acc iden t c a s e bu t f a l s e l y represen ted t o t h e c l i e n t t h a t t h e ca se had been dismissed; f a i l e d t o i n s t i t u t e an a c t i o n f o r d ivo rce on beha l f of a c l i e n t from whom he had accepted a r e t a i n e r of $440; f a l s e l y r ep re sen t ed t o a United S t a t e s Bankruptcy Court t h a t t h i s c l i e n t had consented t o pay t h e sum of $850 a s a t t o r n e y f e e s a l though h e had assured his c l i e n t t h a t no a t t o r n e y f e e s would be charged; and failed t o answer f i v e Requests f o r Inves t i ga t ion . Respondent's conduct was found t o be i n v i o l a t i o n o f MCR 9.104(1-4,7), MCR 9.103(C), MCR 9.113(B)(2) and Canons 1 , 2, 6 , and 7 of t h e Code of P r o f e s s i o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y , DR 1 - 1 0 2 A 1 4 - 6 , DR 2-llO(A)(3), DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 7- lOl (A) l -3) . Costs were a s se s sed i n t h e amount of $236.85.
I n i t s unanimous d e c i s i o n t o e n t e r a n o r d e r r e v o k i n g Respondent 's l i c e n s e t o p r a c t i c e law, t h e panel noted t h e aggrava t ing e f f e c t of Respondent's p r i o r d i s c i p l i n a r y h i s t o r y c o n s i s t i n g of a Reprimand i n December 1984, a seventy-five-day suspension e f f e c t i v e October 16 , 1985 and a suspension of 180 : f f e c t s i n c e May 26,