MEMBERS MARTIN M. DOCTOROFF CHAIRMAN ROBERT S. HARRISON VICE. CHAIAMAN
CHARLES C. VINCENT, M.D. SECRETARY
REMONA A. GREEN HAt,'-EY rv:. GURWIN FATR;CK J. KEATING :JDESSA KOMER
STATE OF MICHIGAN ~ ~\()t"t!' 1iisdplint JSa 'P~ 8. Cirb
~ ..
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE OJ"ECTOR & GENERAL CCUNSEL
suire 1260 333 W FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 482211
Area Coae 3' 3 963ยท5553
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION (By Cons en t)
File No. DP 12/85; DP 83/85; DP 108/85; DP 137/85 George L. Baer, PI0335, 1128 Beach Street, Flint, MI 48502 by the Attorney Discipline Board Flint Hearing Panel '2.
1) Suspension - 3 years and 1 day; 2) Effective January 15, 1987. In a StipUlation for Consent Discipline filed in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), Respondent admitted the allegations in four Formal Complaints containing, in all, fifteen Counts of professional misconduct.
Responden twas re tained to seek. damages agains t an oil company in 1976 and assured his cHent from 1976 to 1985 that litigation had beeu instituted and that the case was proceeding when, in fact, Respondent had taken no action on his client's
behalf. In 1977, Respondent was retained to re;>resent a client i~ a pe=sonal injury ac:iou acd failed ~o recuce ~,e ccnt!ngent fee agreement to writing as required by GCR 928.6 [now MCR 8.121(F)]. Thereafter, Respondent continually assured his clients that suit had been filed and that the case was proceeding when, in fact, the suit filed by Respondent was barred by the Statute of Limitations and had been dismissed. Respondent falsely represented to his clients that the case had been settled for $47,000 but that the distribution to the cHents had been los t in the mail.
In.1980 and 1981, Respondent was retained by a client to handle a civil claim for damages and a real estate foreclosure matter. In both cases Respondent falsely assured his client that the cases were proceeding satisfactorily when, in fact, no action had been taken. In 1981, Respondent undertook the representation of another client and, although he failed to take action on his
client's behalf, falsely represented that the case had been settled for $3,900 and delivered to the client $2,500 of his own money. In his Answer to the Request for Investigation filed by that client, Respondent falsely stated that settlement had been negotiated with the defendant and the $2,500 had been paid by the defendant. Respondent agreed to represent two additional clients
in 1981 and 1982 in an employment discrimination case and a civil action against an insurance company. In both cases, Respondent misrepresented the status of those I:I8tters in order to conceal his failure to commence appropriate proceedings. On three occaSions, Responcent failed to Answer Requests for Investigation and he failed to answer a Formal Complaint.
Respondent's conduct is deemed to be in violation of MCR 9.104(1-4) [former GCR 953(1-7)], MCR 8.121(F) [former GCR 928.6] and MCR 9.113(A)(B)(2) [former GCR 962.1 and 962.2) and Canons 1, 5, 6 and 7 of the Code of Professional ResponsibUity DR 1-102(A)(1-6), DR 5-103(A)(B) , DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR
7-10l(A)(l-3).
Costs were assessed in the amount of
In addition to the reinstatement requirements set forth in MCR 9.124, Respondent will be required to obtain recertification by the Board of Law Examiners before he is "~for ~l .. ta'_D' '" "" ,n,"" of law.
Jo . F. VanBo t Da ted: JAN 1 6 199~
.j