Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. CHAIRPERSON LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD VICE-CHAIRPERSON REV. DR. LOUIS J. PRUES SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER

PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS JASON M. TURKISH

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR

ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147

PHONE: 313-963-5553

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)

Case No. 21-71-GA Notice Issued: April 29, 2022 David A. Chasnick, P 57097, Novi, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #68

Reprimand, Effective April 28, 2022 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline and Waiver, pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), that was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ amended stipulation, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client for whom he was retained to domesticate a 2012 Nevada parenting agreement in Michigan and to file a motion to enforce custody.

Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); and failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $757.96.

 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.