MEMBMS MARTIN M. DOCTOROFF CHAIRMAN
ROBERT S. HARRISON VICE CHAIRMAN I CHARLES C. VINCENT, M.D. SECRETARY REMONA A. GREEN HANLEY M. GURWIN PATRICK J. KEATING ODESSA KOMER
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 8
GENERAL COUNSEL
- SUlTe 1260 333 W FORT STREET
DETROIT MICHIGAN 48226
Area Code 313 963.5553
NOTICE OF ORDERS OF REVOCATION
F i l e Nos. DP 91/85, DP 152 185; DP 222 186 Thomas A . Nickels , P27008, 280 Is landview Drive, Alpena, M I 49707.
( 1) ( 2 )
Revocation; E f f e c t i v e A p r i l 16, 1987 ( F i l e No. DP 91/85; DP 152185) A p r i l 16, 1987 ( F i l e No. DP 222186)
A s the r e s u l t of s e p a r a t e d i s c i p l i n a r y proceedings b e f o r e two Hearing Pane ls of the Attorney Di sc ip l ine Board, a n Order of Revocation was f i l e d by each Panel on March 25, 1987. The Orders of Revocation, which r u n concur ren t ly , became e f f e c t i v e A p r i l 16 , 1987.
The Traverse C i t y Hearing Panel cons idered Complaints DP 91/85 and DP 152185 which were consol ida ted f o r hear ing. The Complaint i n DP 91/85 charged that Respondent was r e t a i n e d b y a c l i e n t i n A p r i l 1984 t o i n s t i t u t e a d ivorce a c t i o n on her beha l f . Respondent f i l e d a Complaint f o r d ivorce and made arrangements f o r a s e r v i c e of a Summons and Complaint upon the Defendant i n Wayne County. On May 30, 1984, Respondent was n o t i f i e d that the Wayne County S h e r i f f was u n a b l e t o s e r v e p r o c e s s upon t h e Defendant. The rea f t e r , Respondent f a i l e d t o take any f u r t h e r a c t i o n and the Complaint was dismissed by the Court on November 2 , 1984. The Complaint f u r t h e r charged that Respondent f a i l e d t o n o t i f y h i s c l i e n t that her ca se had been dismissed a l though he reques ted that she pay f u r t h e r f e e s which he accepted i n January 1985. Count I1 of t h a t Complaint a l l e g e d that the Respondent submit ted and Answer t o the Request f o r I n v e s t i g a t i o n which was misleading and incomplete. Respondent f i l e d a n Answer t o t h a t Complaint b u t f a i l e d t o appear a t the hear ing. Based upon the evidence presen ted , the Panel found that the charges had been proven and that Respondent 's conduct c o n s t i t u t e d v i o l a t i o n s of MCR 9.104(1-4)(7), MCR 9.113(A) and Canons 1, 6 & 7 of the 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 - 1 2 A 5 6 ; DR 6-101 (A) ( 2 ) (3) and DR 7-101(A) (1-3).
Responden t f a i l e d t o f i l e a n Answer t o Compla in t DP 152185. By v i r t u e of the Defaul t , the Panel concluded that those charges had been e s t a b l i s h e d to w i t : that i n h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a c l i e n t i n a d ivo rce mat te r i n Cheboygan County, Respondent purchased a Toyota Pick-up Truck from h i s c l i e n t a t l e s s than i t s
fair-market value a 1 t hough he knew t h a t the veh ic l e was a j o i n t
Thomas A . N i c k e l s , FN Page 2
marital a s s e t s u b j e c t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e C o u r t and he took p o s s e s s i o n of o t h e r marital p r o p e r t y i n c l u d i n g a b o a t and t r a i l e r and a n a l l - t e r r a i n v e h i c l e . On June 18, 1985, a n Order was e n t e r e d b y t h e Cheboygan County C i r c u i t Cour t d i r e c t i n g him t o r e t u r n that p r o p e r t y b u t Respondent w i l l f u l l y f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e C o u r t ' s O r d e r a n d a c t i v e l y c o n c e a l e d t h o s e i tems. Respondent ' s conduct was found t o b e i n v i o l a t i o n of MCR 9 . 1 0 4 ( 1 - 4 ) a n d Canons 1 a n d 7 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 7-102 ( A ) ( l - 3 ) ( 7 ) .
T h a t Hear ing Panel concluded t h a t a Revoca t ion o f Responden t ' s l i c e n s e was a p p r o p r i a t e i n l i g h t o f a p r i o r d i s c i p l i n a r y h i s t o r y r e f l e c t i n g a p e r v a s i v e p a t t e r n of d i s r e g a r d and d i s r e s p e c t f o r a n a t t o r n e y ' s . d u t y t o d e a l t r u t h f u l l y w i t h c l i e n t s , the c o u r t s and o t h e r members o f the l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n . C o s t s were a s s e s s e d i n t h e amount $237.04.
I n s e p a r a t e p r o c e e d i n g s b r o u g h t b e f o r e Wayne C o u n t y Hear ing Panel 1 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 b e f o r e t h e Pane l . The Pane l found t h a t Respondent was suspended from t h e p r a c t i c e of l a w f o r three
y e a r s b y a n Order of t h e Supreme Cour t e f f e c t i v e October 18 , 1985 ( r e d u c i n g a n Order of Revoca t ion e n t e r e d b y t h e A t t o r n e y D i s c i p l i n e Board) and that the Order d i r e c t e d that t h e Respondent re imburse t h e S t a t e of Michigan f o r c o s t s i n t h e amount $1,273.17. Respondent ' s f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e terms of that Order was deemed t o b e i n v i o l a t i o n of MCR 9.104(1-4)(8) ; MCR 9.128 and Canon 1 of 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 - 0 2 ( A ( 1 ) ( 5 6 The Pane l no ted Respondent ' s p r i o r r e c o r d o f d i s c i p l i n e i n c l u d i n g two Reprimands, a Suspens ion of 120 days and a Suspens ion f o r three y e a r s . C o s t s i n t h a t c a s e were a s s e s s e d i n t h e amount o f $89.02.
Note : P r i o r t o t h e Revoca t ion of Respondent ' s l i c e n s e t o p r a c t i c e law, e f f e c t i v e A p r i l 16, 1987, Respondent ' s l i c e n s e was suspended, e f f e c t i v e October 18 , 1985, b y a n Order of t h e
Da ted :
m 2 3 ~ ~