MEMBERS PATRICK J. KEATlNG DuY(MAN MARTIN M. DOCTOROFF VICEOUIRUIN C. AARLES VINCENT. M.D. YCRETARI
REMONA A. GREEN HANLEY M. GURWIN
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 6 G E M W CDUNSEL -
WIT€ I 2 6 0 333 W FORT STREET DETROIT. MWlWN U)2m
AluCoQ313gs3.5553
ROBERT S. HARRISON ODESSA KOMER
P i l e No. DP 97/85 George J. Barrington, P 23574, 24901 Northwestern Highway, S u i t e 405, Sou th f i e ld , H I 48076 by Attorney Disc ip l ine Board Oakland County Hearing Panel #13.
(1) Suspension - 120 Days; (2) Ef fec t ive August 11, 1986. The Hear ing P a n e l found t h a t t h e Respondent , i n h i s r ep resen ta t ion of a c l i e n t i n a Juveni le Court matter, f a i l e d t o
a p p e a r f o r a h e a r i n g . T h e r e a f t e r , t h e c l i e n t was unab le t o communicate wi th the Respondent f o r the reason that he had moved h i s law o f f i c e , wi thout n o t i c e to h i s c l i e n t , the Court o r the S t a t e Bar of Michigan, and l e f t no forwarding address. The Panel a l s o found t h a t i n h i s representa t ion of another c l i e n t i n a n unrela ted Probate Court matter, the Respondent's neg lec t of the
9
l e g a l mat ter en t rus ted t o him resu l t ed i n the dismissal of h i s c l i e n t ' s claim of appeal. The Panel found t h a t the c l i e n t was f u r t h e r p r e j u d i c e d by h e r i n a b i l i t y t o l o c a t e h e r a t t o r n e y .
F ina l ly , the Panel found t h a t both c l i e n t s f i l e d Requests f o r Inves t iga t ion wi th the Attorney Grievance Commiss ion, and tha t f n
b o t h c a s e s t h e Respondent f a i l e d t o Answer t h e Reques t s f o r Inves t iga t ion served upon him by the Grievance Administrator. The Respondent was found t o have v i o l a t e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s of MCR 9.104(1-4)(7), MCR 9.113(B)(2) and Canons 1,6,7 6 9 of the Code of Profess ional Responsibi l i ty ; DR 1 - 1 0 2 ~ 1 5 - 6 ; DR 6 - 1 0 1 ( ~ ) ( 3 ) ; DR 7-101(~)(1-3) and DR 9-102(B)(4).
I n i t s Report, the Hearing Panel noted Respondents p r i o r h i s t o r y of d i s c i p l i n e cons i s t ing of a Reprimand i n 1977 and a S ix ty Day Suspension i n 1979. In l i g h t of the nature of the misconduc t i n t h i s c a s e t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e p r i o r h i s t o r y o f d i s c i p l i n e , the Panel imposed a Suspension of 120 Days. The Respondent w i l l be required to e a t z b l i s h h i s e l i g i b i l i t y f o r re ins ta tement i n accordance with MCR 9.123(B) and MCR 9.124. Costs were assessed i n the amount of $359.34.
Da 'te d:
A U G 1 4 W