Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

WILLIAM G. REAMON, CHAIRPERSON PATRICK J. KEATING, VICE-CHAIRPERSON BERNADINE N. DENNING. SECRETARY JOHN L . COTE MARTIN M. DOCTOROFF 'I ROBERT S. HARRISON CHARLES C . VINCENT, M. D.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JOHN F. X . DWAIHY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 6 GENERAL COUNSEL

SUITE 1260 333 W. FORT STREET DETROIT, MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 6 TELEPHONE:(313) 9 6 3 - 5 5 5 3

NOTI= OF SUSPENSION F i l e No. DP 182/84

DOUGLAS E.H. WILLIAMS, P23780, 919 N. Washington, S t e . 1, Bay Ci ty , Michigan 48706, by the Midland Hearing Panel of the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board.

1. Suspension 2. For a per iod of One Hundred Eighty (180) days. 3 . E f f e c t i v e 15 J u l y 1985. The hear ing panel found t h a t Respondent was r e t a ined t o i n v e s t i g a t e and f i l e an employment c i v i l r i g h t s ac t ion . Despi te Respondent 's promises to h i s c l i e n t , he conducted no inves t iga- t i o n . A s a r e s u l t of Responden t ' s n e g l e c t , c e r t a i n o f h i s c l i e n t ' s r i g h t s were barred. Respondent a l s o f a i l e d t o n o t i f y h i s c l i e n t s of a previous suspension en te red by the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board and the re fo re disobeyed the Order of the D i s c i p l i n e Board i n t h a t case. The panel a l s o considered t h i s p r e v i o u s s u s p e n s i o n of Responden t which was f o r a p e r i o d o f e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) months. The p a n e l found t h a t Respondent had v i o l a t e d MCR 9 . l o4 (1-4) and Canons 1, 6 and 7 of the Code of P ro fe s s iona l Respons ib i l i t y : DR 1-102 ( ~ ) ( 4 ) ( 5 ) ( 6 ) ; DR 6-101 (A)(3) and DR 7-101 ( ~ ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , Respondent was found to have v i o l a t e d MCR 9.104 (8) and MCR 9 .I19 a s w e l l a s Canon 1 of t h e Code o f 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 ( A ) ( l ) . Costs were a s se s sed i n the amount of $206.54.

F ~ /bAhlA iA Franc is Helm i n s k i

In t e r im Counsel

Dated: 22 J u l y 1985

 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.