Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

M,ARNTI

MEMBERS PATRICK J. KEATING CHAIRMAN M. DOCTOROFF VICE CHAIRMAN 3HARLES C. VINCENT. M.D. SECRETARY REMONA A. GREEN kANLEY M. GURWIN

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 6 GENERAL COUNSEL

SUITE 12W 323 W. FORT STREET DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226

Area Cad8 313 963.5553

ROBERT S. HARRISON ODESSA KOMER

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION F i l e No. DP 23/85 Arnold L. Weiner, P 22104, 7365 Woods Coart, W. B l o d i e l d , HI 48033, by the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board a f f i rming a Hearing Panel Decision.

(1 ) ( 2 )

Suspension - fou r (4 ) years; E f f e c t i v e March 13, 1985 a ate of Respondent 's Conviction and Automatic Suspension under MCR 9.120

(A)(2) .

The Respondent was ordered by the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board to show cause why a f i n a l o rde r of d i s c i p l i n e should n o t be en t e red a s a r e s u l t of h i s f e lony conv ic t ions i n Oakland County C i r c u i t Court. The Hearing Panel found t h a t on March 13 , 1985, the Respondent was convicted of embezzlement by a n a g e n t ove r $100 a n d a t t e m p t e d embezzlement by a n a g e n t o v e r $100, b o t h conv ic t ions a r i s i n g from the Respondent's involvement i n a scheme whereby h i s c l i e n t , a p r o p r i e t o r of g r o u p homes f o r s e n i o r c i t i z e n s , defrauded s e v e r a l e l d e r l y women aided by documents d r a f t e d by the Respondent.

While no t ing the s e r i o u s n a t u r e of the crimes committed, the Hearing Panel considered the mi t iga t ing e f f e c t of i t s f i n d i n g t h a t the Respondent was s u f f e r i n g from a "dependent" p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r which may have clouded h i s reasoning a t the time of h i s misconduct. A fou r ( 4 ) year suspension from the p r a c t i c e of law was imposed, commencing March 13, 1985, the d a t e of Respondent' s conv ic t ion and h i s au tomat ic suspension under MCR 9 . 1 2 0 ( ~ )( 2 ) . Costs were assessed i n the amount of $824.65. The d i s c i p l i n e imposed was a f f i r n e d by a n Order of the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board e f f e c t i v e j u l y 1, 1986.

 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.