STATE O F MICHIGAN
John F. VanBolt U C C U T M OlllCCTOR b OC*f.RU - COU N¶LL SUITC ueo 333 w. mnT S7RCCT O C T R O l b UICHIGAN rbtlb T C L C C U O I I C : ( ~ I ~s)e 3-s~sa
F i l e Nos. DP 27/85;.DP 109/85; DP 99/55 Graff Kmncllr, P 25887, 32330 U. Twelve Mile, Farmfngton H i l l s , H I 48018 by Attorney Discipline Board Uayne County Bearing Panel 22.
(1) Suspension (3 years, 1 day); (2) Effective March 28, 1986. The Respondent f a i l ed to answer three Formal Complaints f i l e d by the Grievance Adminis t ra tor and f a i l e d to appear a t the hea r ing on those consolidated Complaints. The Hearing Panel concluded tha t the a l l ega t ions of misconduct were deemed to be admitted by v i r tue of the Defaults which had been f i l e d and the Panel fur ther concluded tha t the a l l ega t ions of misconduct were Independently established by a preponderance of the evidence submitted a t the hearing.
1
I n F i l e DP 27/85, the Panel found tha t the Respondent had neglected a l ega l matter entrusted to him by a c l i e n t in 1977 and tha t from 1978 to
1984 made f a l s e statements to the c l i e n t concerning the s t a t u s of the case. The Panel fur ther found tha t the Respondent was served with a Request for Investigation from the Attorney Grievance Commission but t ha t h i e answer to the Grievance Administrator was f a l se , misleading and deceptive and was accompanied by a l e t t e r purportedly prepared in 1978 but which was, i n f a c t , a forgery prepared by the Respondent i n 1985. Respondent a l so f a i l ed to appear i n response to a Subpoena Duces Tecum served by the Grievance Administrator.
In F i l e DP 99/85, the Bearing Panel found tha t the Respondent's n e g l e c t of a pe r sona l i n j u r y case f o r which he was r e t a i n e d i n 1974 resul ted in the dismissal of the case in 1977 and tha t Respondent made f a l s e statements to h i s c l i e n t concerning the s t a tus of that case from 1977 to 1984. The Panel found tha t i n answer to the Request fo r Inves t iga t ion f i l e d by tha t c l i e n t , the Respondent submitted an answer which was f a l s e , misleading and deceptive and which was accompanied by a l e t t e r purportedly prepared in 1980 but which was, i n f ac t , a forgery prepared in 1985.
In F l l e DP 109/85, the Panel concluded t h a t Respondent's f a i l u r e to answer Complaint DP 27/85 consti tuted an addi t ional a c t of professional misconduct.
The Respondent was found to have violated the standards of professional conduct a r s e t f o r t h i n Mat 9.104(1-4)(6)(7), MCX 9 . 1 1 3 ( ~ ) , Canons 1 , 6 & 7 of the Coda of Professional Rerponsibil i ty DR 1-lO2(~)(4-6), DR 6-101(~)(3) and DR 7-101(~)(2)(3) and DR 7-102(~)(3-6).
The Respondent war ordered to make r e s t i t u t i o n in the amount of $500.00 in repayment of the r e t a ine r fee paid to him by h i s c l i e n t i n 1977. Actual cos ts were assessed i n the amount of $300.76 together with fu r the r cos ts i n tha amount of 5500.00 assessed i n conjuction with the granting of Respondent' s request f o r an adjournment of the f i r s t scheduled hearing date.
ive Director h nera l Counsel
Da ted :
QPR 7. F!