MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DER WIELE CHAIRPERSON REV. MICHAEL MURRAY VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN
JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
211 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553 I FAX: 313-963-5571
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
DISMISSAL Case No. 18-34-MZ (Ref. 15-148-GA; 16-140-MZ)
Andrew J. Kozyra, P 38309, Almont, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline 80ard Tri-County Hearing Panel #62.
Dismissal - Effective August 22, 2018. A show cause hearing was held in this matter on May 31, 2018. After that hearing, the panel ordered that the Grievance Administrator's Petition for Entry of an Order to Require Respondent to Show Cause Why Discipline Should Not 8e Increased for Failure to Comply with Conditions, filed March 23, 2018, be denied notwithstanding respondent's clear failure to comply with the panel's July 18, 2018 order. The hearing panel declined to extend discipline beyond the 180-day suspension of respondent's license to practice law originally imposed in the panel's March 14, 2016 order given that respondent's license has been continually suspended since April 5, 2016, and that respondent is ineligible to petition for reinstatement until he can establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that he has met all of the requirements of MCR 9.123(8)(1 )-(9), in particular MCR 9.123(8)(4) and (9). The panel further ordered that all other aspects of the March 14,2016 Order of Suspension and Restitution (8y Consent), and the July 18, 2017 Order Amending Order of Suspension and Restitution (8y Consent), would remain unchanged and that respondent will be compelled to address his failure to comply with the panel's July 18, 2017 order in the event of any future petition for reinstatement. The matter was dismissed without prejudice and no costs were assessed against respondent.
Jmrmege~ Executive Director