MEMeERS, M. DOCTOROFF U-IAIRMAN ROBERT S. HARRISON VICE CHAIRMAN l LES C. VINCENT. M.O. '.?ETARY
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOHN F VAN BOLT ~ E C U T N ED IRECT~R.4 GENERA -L COU NSEL
SUlE 1260 333 W FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226
Area Coae 313 963-5%
HANLEY M. GURWIN PATRICK J. KWTlNG ODESSA KOMER
David M e l v i n d a l e ,
NOTICE INCREASING DISCIPLINE F i l e No. DP 91/86 A. Glenn, P 14049, 3005 oakwood Boulevard, M I 48122, by t h e A t t o r n e y D i s c i p l i n e i n c r e a s i n g
d i s c i p l i n e by modifying a Hearing Panel Order of Reprimand t o a T h i r t y Day Suspension.
1) Reprimand, Count I Suspension - 30 Days, Count XI; 2 ) E f f e c t i v e March 17, 1987. Respondent f a i l e d t o answer the Formal Complaint and h i s D e f a u l t was e n t e r e d . The Compla in t c h a r g e d t h a t R e s p o n d e n t neglec ted t o i n s t i t u t e t imely a c t i o n on h i s c l i e n t ' s beha l f i n a bankrup tcy ma tter and f a i l e d to answer the c l i e nt ' s Request f o r Inves t i g a t ion . The Hearing Panel concluded t h a t Respondent' s f a i l u r e to answer the Request f o r Inves t i g a t i o n warranted d i s c i p l i n e b u t found t h a t the charge of n e g l e c t had n o t been e s t ab l i shed .
Upon i ts review of P e t i t i o n s f i l e d by the Respondent and the Grievance Adminis t ra tor , the Attorney Di sc ip l ine Board, c i t i n g i t s p r i o r dec i s ions , r u l e d t h a t Defau l t f o r f a i l u r e to answer a Complaint i n d i s c i p l i n a r y proceedings c o n s t i t u t e s a n admission to the charges of misconduct. While the a t t o r n e y is e n t i t l e d to o f f e r m i t i g a t i n g evidence, he or she is precluded from c o n t e s t i n g the charges of misconduct un le s s the Defau l t has b e e n se t a s i d e . The Board found t h a t a Reprimand was a n appropr i a t e d i s c i p l i n e w i t h regard t o the charge of n e g l e c t and r u l e d t h a t Respondent' s unexplained f a i l u r e t o answer the Reques t f o r I n v e s t i g a t i o n warranted a t h i r t y day suspension. Respondent's conduct was found t o b e i n v i o l a t i o n of MCR 9.104(1-4 & 7 ) , MCR 9.113 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 1-102(A)(4-6); DR 6 - 1 0 1 ( ~ ) ( 3 ) and DR 7-101(A)(l-3). Costs were a s se s sed i n the amount of $190.94.
The Board noted t h a t i ts d e c i s i o n to i nc rease d i s c i p l i n e was i n t e n d e d t o s e r v e n o t i c e t o members of t h e Bar t h a t t h e
lawyer who ignores ' the duty imposed by Court Rule to answer Requests for Investigation and Formal Complaints does So a t h i s or her peril and absent exceptional circumstances, may expect a d i s c i p l i n e greater than a Reprimand.
Da t 'edW . ~ E O I S V