Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS ROBERT S. HARRISON CHAIRMAN HANLEY M. GURWIN VICE CHAIRMAN iARLES C. VINCENT. M.D. SECRETARY HON. MARTIN M. WCTOROff REMONA A. GREEN PATRICK J. KEATING THEODORE P. ZEGOURAS

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JOHN F. VAN BOLT aEcunvE D I R E C6~ GENERAL COUNSEL --

SUITE 1260 333 W. FCRT STREET DETROIT. MICHGAN

Area Code 313 962-5553

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION ADB 172-87 Mark L. Pope, P 35590, 1026 Mohawk, Royal Oak, M I 48067 by Attorney Di sc ip l ine Board Oakland County Hearing Panel #17.

1 ) Reprimand; 2) E f f e c t i v e February 12, 1988. Respondent appeared before t h e hea r ing panel and admit ted t h e m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s contained i n t h e Formal Complaint, t h a t he f a i l e d t o i n i t i a t e a personal a c t i o n a f t e r accept ing a $150 r e t a i n e r , t h a t he d i d not r e t u r n t h e unearned po r t ion of t h a t f e e t o h i s c l i e n t , t h a t he 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 and t h a t he f a i l e d t o n o t i f y h i s c l i e n t of h i s temporary suspension from t h e p r a c t i c e of law f o r f a i l u r e t o pay h i s a n n u a l d u e s t o t h e S t a t e Bar o f Michigan . Based upon Respondent's admissions and the documents submitted by t h e Grievance Administrator , t h e panel concluded t h a t Respondent had

misconduct Code of Profess iona l DR 2-llO(A)(3),

engaged i n p ro fe s s iona l 9.104(1-4,7), MCR 9.103(C), MCR 9.113(B)(2) and Canons 1 , 2, 3, 6 and 7 of t h e 1-102(A)(1,3-6), DR 7-101(A)(l-3).

DR 3-101(B),

i n

v i o l a t i o n of Respons ib i l i t y , DR 6-101(A)(3),

MCR DR and

By a ma jo r i t y , t h e hearing panel concluded t h a t a reprimand was warranted i n l i g h t of t h e m i t i g a t i n g circumstances presented by t h e Respondent inc luding t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s which r e s u l t e d from h i s a t tempts t o maintain a s o l e p r a c t i c e from h i s home with-minimal resources. A d i s s e n t i n g member of t h e panel recoannended a suspension f o r t h i r t y days. Costs were assessed i n

 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.