Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

).-: Patrick J. Keating, Chainran Maain M. Doctorof5 V i & h Charles C. V i t , Secretary Remm A. Green Hanley M. Gumin Pobert S. Harrison Odessa Kaner

STATE O F MICHIGAN

John F. VanBolt EXECUTIVE OIRECTOR X GENERAL COUNSEL -

SUITE 1260 333 W. FORT STREET DETROIT. MICH8GAN 48226 T L E P W O N E : ( ~ I ~9~6 3-5553

NOTICE OF - REPRIPINID F i l e No. DP 134184 Curtis 6. Rundell, 11, P 19761, 29777 Telegraph Road, S u i t e 2631, Southf i e l d , M I 48034, by the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board Oakland County Hearing Panel #13.

( 1) Reprimand ; ( 2 ) E f f e c t i v e A p r i l 1, 1986. The Hearing Panel considered a S i x Count Complaint f i l e d by the Grievance Administrator a l l e g i n g p ro fe s s iona l misconduct by the Respondent i n h i s handling of a probate mat te r . The Panel sus t a ined the charges s e t f o r t h i n Count I11 i n t h a t Complaint, t o w i t : that h i s f a i l u r e t o prepare and f i l e a n annual account i n the decedent 's e s t a t e , and the r e s u l t i n g suspension of h i s c l i e n t a s f i d u c i a r y of the e s t a t e , c o n s t i t u t e d neg lec t of a l e g a l ma t t e r en t rus t ed to him and was a f a i l u r e t o seek the lawful o b j e c t i v e s of h i s c l i e n t .

I n concluding t h a t Respondent' s conduct v i o l a t e d Canon 6 DR 6-101(A)(3) and Canon 7 DR 7 - 1 0 1 ( ~ ) ( 1 ) o f t h e Code o f P ro fe s s iona l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y , the Hearing Panel noted t h a t , d e s p i t e a t o l e r a n t and fo rg iv ing view i n some probate c o u r t s , the suspension and r e ins t a t emen t of a f i d u c i a r y i s n o t a nominal o r t r i v i a l occurrence.

I n m i t i g a t i o n , the Hearing Panel noted Respondent's p r i o r medical cond i t i on and h i s prev ious ly unblemished record. The Hearing Panel concluded t h a t the a l l e g a t i o n s of c e r t a i n c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t contained i n the remaining Counts of the Complaint had n o t been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Costs were assessed i n the amount of $1232.39.

John IF. Y VanBol t E hkut ive Di rec to r & P G e n e r a l Counsel

Da ted : fim? 17 Ff!t,

 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.