PATRICK J. KEATlNG 01*rnYlCl MARTIN M. DOCTOROFF KEcujmuN C34RLES C. VINCENT. M.D. StU1RbnY
STATE OF MICHIGAN
REMONA A. G R E W HANLEY M. GURWlN ROBERT S. HARRISON ODESSA KOMER
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION P i l e Nos. DP 84/85; DP 1/86 Edwin G. Fabra, P 13265, 1535 David Uhitrrey Building, Det ro i t , H I 08226 by an Order of th. Attorney Discipline Board, e f f e c t i n October 22, 1986, increasing a Bearing Panel Order of Suspension of 60 days to a Suspension of Three Years. 1) Suspension - threa years;
2) Effective thy 20, 1986. The Respondent d i d n o t f i l e an Answer t o the Formal Complaint which charged t h a t ha had misappropriated c l i e n t funds i n the amount of $3000.00 and tha t hm had f a i l ed to answer the Request f o r Invea t lga t i on served by the Grievance Adminis w tor . A second Complaint, charging tha t f a i l u r e to answer t h f i r s t Complaint cons t i tu ted addi t ional misconduct, was unanswered and Defaults were f i l e d i n the cases consolidated f o r t r i a l . A t the hearing on February 4, 1986, the Respondent returned the sum of
$3000.00 to the Complainant and t e s t i f i e d to the Panel t h a t he had received a $5000.00 set t lement on behalf of a c l i e n t , t ha t he had deducted the agreed upon fee of $2000.00 and that he had used
the remaining $3000.00 to discharge personal obl iga t ions , including h i s law o f f i c e overhead expenses. Respondent was found
to have v io la ted the provisions of HCR 9.104(1-4)(7); MCR 9 .113(8 ) (2 ) and Canons 1 & 9 of the Code of P r o f e s s i o n a l Responsibil i ty, to w i t : DE 1-102(~)(1,3,4-6); DR 9-102(~)( 2) and DR 9-102(B) (4) .
The Bearing Panel, noting Respondent's pr ior unblemished record, entered an Order suspendiing h i s l icense to prac t ice law f o r a period of 60 &ys and ordering r e s t i t u t i o n in the amount of $600.00 88 accrued i n t e r e s t on the funds wi thheld from the c l i en t .
In review proceedings ins ti tuted by the Grievance Adminis Ua tor under HCB 9.118, the Attorney Discipline Board increased the suspension to a period of three years. The Board minimized th. mitiga t ing ef f e c t of r e s t i t u t i o n made a f t e r the commencement of d i sc ip l ina ry proceedings o r the weight to be given an unblemished i n a case involving the embezzlenent of c l i e n t funds, and i t concluded tha t a shor t suspension accompanied by automatic reinstatement i n such a case i s n o t cons i s t en t with the purposes of these d i sc ip l ina ry proceedings nor does i t adequately r e f l e c t the l ega l prof easion' s condemnation of the misuse of c l i e n t funds. Coats were assessed in the amount of $282.54.
(NOTE: The Respondent did no t request a s a y of the Hearing Panel Order and the 60 day suspension ordered by the Panel therefore
.
became e f f ec t ive Hay 20, 1986, pending review by the Attorney Discipline Board. No Aff idavi t of Compliance having been f i l e d by the Respondent with the Clerk of the Supreme Court o r the Grievance Adminis era tor , a s required by the Court Rules, Respondent's l icense to prac t ice law was not re ins ta ted a t the end of the 60 day period and the three year suspension i r deemed ef f ec t i ve Hay 20, 1986.)