ReXm A. Creen Hanley M. Cumin RobertS.Harriscm Odessa Kaner
STATE O F MICHIGAN
NOTICE OF BEVOCATION (BY Consent)
John F. VanBolt CXECUTW DIRECTOR I GCNLRA -L COU NSEL SUITE I260 333 w. r o w STREET
OCTROIT. MICWIGAN 40226 tELEPwONC:[3l3) Q ~ ~ - S S S ~
F i l e No. DP 158185; DP 168185
Michael E. Katulski, P 15743, 13407 Farmington Road, S u i t e 203-207, Livonia , M I 48150 by Attorney Discipl-ine Board, Wayne County Hearing Panel #a.
(1) Revocation; (2 ) Retroactive to J u l y 15, 1985. Revocation to run concurrently with a One Year Suspension which has been e f f e c t i v e s ince J u l y 15, 1985 a s a r e s u l t of a p r i o r d i sc ip l ina ry order.
The Respondent and t h e Grievance A d m i n i s t r a t o r e n t e r e d i n t o a S t ipu la t ion f o r the en t ry of a Consent Order revoking Respondent's l i c e n s e to p rac t i ce law r e t r o a c t i v e to Ju ly 15, 1985, the e f f e c t i v e date of a one year suspension entered i n a p r i o r d i sc ip l ina ry matter .
I n t h a t S t i p u l a t i o n , the Respondent admitted the a l l e g a t i o n s contained i n two separa te Formal Complaints f i l e d by the Grievance Administrator, containing s i x counts and eleven counts respect ively . Those Complaints a l leged t h a t the Respondent had neglected l e g a l matters ent rus ted to him by three separa te c l i e n t s and had f a i l e d to seek t h e i r l e g a l object ives ; t h a t he knowingly made f a l s e statements to two of those c l i e n t s concerning the s t a t u s of t h e i r cases ; t h a t he f a i l e d to answer three Requests f o r Inves t igat ion served upon him by the Attorney Grievance Commission; t h a t during a f i f t e e n day suspension e f f e c t i v e May 15, 1984, he pract iced law i n v io la t ion of the Order of Suspension, f a i l e d to n o t i f y h i s c l i e n t s of h i s suspension and f a i l e d to f i l e a proof of mailing with the
Grievance Administrator; t h a t he f i l e d a f a l s e a f f idavi t i n the Michigan Supreme Court concerning h i s e l i g i b i l i t y f o r reinstatement a t the t e r m i n a t i o n of t h a t f i f t e e n suspens ion ; and t h a t d u r i n g a one y e a r suspens ion which became e f f e c t i v e J u l y 1 5 , 1985, he p r a c t i c e d law i n v i o l a t i o n of the Order of Suspension and f a i l e d to no t i fy h i s c l i e n t s of h i s change of status. The Respondent admitted t h a t h i s conduct v io la ted the provisions of MCR 9.104(1-4)(7), MCR 9.119 and Canons of 1, 6 d 7 of
the Code of Profess ional Responsibil i ty DR 1-102(A) (4-6), and DR 7-101(A) (1-3).
DR 6 -101(~)( 1-3)
An Order of Revocat ion by c o n s e n t was e n t e r e d by Wayne County Hearing Pjanel t 8 on March 20, 1986 pursuant to the S t ipu la t ion submitted by
assessed i n the amount of $89.82.
Wf;Cutive Director h General Counsel ApR 1 8 Da ted :