?ags: ratrick J, Keating, aaimml kctin ti. Docta ro-s V Qlarles C. V ,- S e c r e m ~ e m Ao, ~Gre en Hanley M. curwin R6ben: S. Harrism Odessa Krmer
STATE O F MICHIGAN
John F. VanBolt OIECUttW OIRCCTOR L GLNLRAL COUNSEL
¶UITE 1260 3 3 3 W. CORT STREET OLTROlr. YICWICAN 40226 T E L ~ P ~ o N ~ :9[03~-5~5)5 3
F i l e No-. DP 64/35 Lee V e a Loyd, P 27230, 120 E. F i f t h S t r e e t , F l i n t , M I 48502, At torney D i s c i p l i n e Board Oakland County Hearing Pane l #16.
( 1) Revoca t i on ; (2 ) E f f e c t i v e November 8 , 1985. I n a proceeding b e f o r e the J u d i c i a l Tenure Commission, t h e Respondent, a District Judge, was found t o have engaged i n t he
misappropria t i o n of c l i e n t funds, f o r g e r y , o b s t r u c t i o n of j u s t i c e and suborna t i o n of pe r ju ry . I n the subsequent proceedings f i l e d w i t h the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board bea r ing upon Respondent 's f i t n e s s t o p r a c t i c e l a w , t he Hearing Pane l cons idered t h e record and master's r e p o r t i n t h e J u d i c i a l Tenure Commission proceedings t oge the r w i t h f u r t h e r testimony from t h e Respondent and concluded t h a t the Respondent commi ted a l l of the above-mention o f f e n s e s
excep t suborna t ion of pe r ju ry . The Hearing Pane l s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h a t t h e R e s p o n d e n t ' s c o n d u c t was i n v i o l a t i o n o f MCR 9.104(1-5) and Canon 1 of the Code of P r o f e s s i o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y , DR 1-102(1-6).
The Order of Revocation en t e r ed by the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board fol lows the s t i p u l a t i o n of the Respondent and the Grievance Adminis t ra tor t h a t r e s o l u t i o n of t h e J u d i c i a l Tenure Commission matter would r e s u l t i n a n o r d e r by the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board imposing e q u i v a l e n t d i s c i p l i n e , t o be e f f e c t i v e from November 8 , 1985 , t h e d a t e o f t h e S t i p u l a t i o n . On March 21 , 1986 , t h e Supreme Cour t o rdered that the Respondent be removed from J u d i c i a l o f f i c e ; t h e Revocation of Respondent 's l i c e n s e t o p r a c t i c e law e f f e c t i v e November 8 , 1985 was subsequent ly en t e r ed by the D i s c i p l i n e Board under the terms of t h e prev ious ly en t e r ed Consent Order. Cos ts were as se s sed i n the amount of $976.76.
i v e D i r e c t o r & Counsel
Dated: deR 2 3 1986