M E M ~ F C ~ ~ HON MARTIN M. DOCTOROF CHAIRMAN
QOBERT S. HARRISON rn , ICE w r R w iARLES C. VINCENT, M.D. SECRETARY REMONA A. GREEN HANLEY M GURWIN PATRICK J. KEATING ODESSA KOMER
op @i$ciplinr a q$$Ptn ow
STATE OF MICHIGAN
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AMENDED AS TO EFFECTIVE DATE ONLY
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTM WRECTOC16
GENERAL COUNSEL SUITE lZBO 333 W FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN
Area Code 313 963-5553
F i l e Nos. DP 127/86; DP 165/86 David A . Nelson, p 18227, 333 N . Main S t r e e t , Davison, M I 48423 b y t h e Michigan Supreme Cour t denying Respondent 's App l i ca t i on f o r Leave t o Appeal a n Order of Suspension e n t e r e d b y the At torney D i s c i p l i n e Board i n c r e a s i n g a n ine ty day suspens ion ordered b y the Howell Hearing Panel t o a suspens ion of 180 days.
1) Suspension - 180 days;
2 ) E f f e c t i v e May 2 7 , 1987. The Hearing Panel found, b y a preponderance of the ev idence , t h a t the Respondent r ece ived a check i n the amount of $9433.00 naming himself and h i s c l i e n t a s j o i n t payees b u t that Respondent d i d n o t make t ime ly n o t i f i c a t i o n t o h i s c l i e n t that t he s e t t l e m e n t check had been r ece ived . The Panel found t h a t b e f o r e n o t i f i c a t i o n was made, Respondent endorsed t h e check and used those funds t o d i scharge the u n r e l a t e d o b l i g a t i o n of a n o t h e r c l i e n t . The Respondent acknowledged t h a t the funds were n o t maintained i n a c l i e n t t r u s t account b u t argued t h a t the funds were removed from the t r u s t account t o p r o t e c t them from s e i z u r e b y the c l i e n t ' s c r e d i t o r s . The Panel found t h a t Respondent' s conduct was i n v i o l a t i o n of MCR 9.104(1-4) and Canons 1 a n d 9 o f t h e Code o f 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 1-102 ( A )( 4-6) and DR 9-102 (A), ( B )( 2,3,4). A suspens ion of n ine ty days was
mimposed b y the Hearing Pane l .
Following i t s review of the P e t i t i o n s f i l e d by b o t h par t ies, t h e Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board a f f i rmed the Hearing Pane l ' s f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s b u t i nc reased d i s c i p l i n e t o a suspens ion of 180 days. The Board noted the m i t i g a t i n g e f f e c t of Respondent 's p r i o r unblemished r eco rd , h i s r e s t i t u t i o n
t o t he Complainant and h i s performance of s u b s t a n t i a l l e g a l s e r v i c e s to t he
c l i e n t b u t emphasized Respondent 's w i l l f u l v i o l a t i o n of the c l i e n t r u s t a c c o u n t p r o v i s i o n s o f Canon 9. The Board s p e c i f i c a l l y r e j e c t e d t h e argument t h a t a n a t t o r n e y may waive the t r u s t account p rov i s ions of Canon 9 b y t h e d e p o s i t of the lawyers own funds i n a s a f e d e p o s i t box o r pe r sona l
account .
Cos ts were a s s e s s e d i n the amount of $986.42.
The d i s c i p l i n e imposed b y the Hearing Panel and the Board was s t a y e d dur ing the pendency of Respondent' s appea l . Respondent' s App l i ca t i on f o r
-
e+ and Motion f o r Fur ther S tay of Proceedings were b o t h denied bLvea vthe e S remd Court on June 2 6 , 1987.