Dr .e: ;21k ce-wizq Dr. C ! S e s Vkcent W l L L l l u G . R C a u C n L T N I n S n E C T Z 9 V ICE-CHAIRCEaS0N Patrick J. Keathg
STATE OF M I C H I G A N
MAILING AC5RE55:
P. 0. 90% '-I9 QE'ROIT. MICHIGAN 48231
NOTICE OF INCREASED SUSPENSION
JOHN F. I . i : ! l l n r CXECLT:VC 3 l a Z C - 3 . 3 i GENERAL C;Ux;L-
DP-g/81
CARL PI. UElDRlAli, JR., (P 22096), 50623 Je f f e r son , Apartment 315, New Baltimore, H I , 48047, by the Attorney Disc ip l ine Board p u r suant to an order of the Michigan Supreme Court including i n t r u c t i o n s f o r increased suspension. ';
(1 ) (2) (3 )
Increase of suspension from 119 days to 180 daye; Balance of suspension to be served - 61 days;
~ f f e c t i v eF ebruary 1 , 1984. (The o r i g i n a l l y impo,scd 119 day suspension was e f f e c t i v e J u l y 21, 1982 a8 ind ica t ed i n a p r i o r n o t i c e of the Board.)
The Board af f i rmed a hearing panel decis ion imposing a sun- pens ion of 119 days; the Grievance Adminis t ra tor ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l e a v e to appeal r e s u l t e d i n the Court remanding the case to the D i s - c i p l i n e Board f o r e n t r y of an order increas ing Respondent's 119 day suspension to a 180 day suspension wi th c r e d i t f o r 119 days served.
The hear ing panel amde the following f indings: Respondent was r e t a i n e d to probate a n e s t a t e cone i s t ing of r e a l e s t a t a valued a t approximately $10,000 and was appointed adminis t ra t o r ; Respondent so ld t h e r e a l e s t a t e b u t f a i l e d t o d i e t r i b u t e the a s s e t s t o the he i rs -a t - law. Respondent f a i l e d to f i l e a n accounting and f a i l e d to o therwise c l o s e t h e e s t a t e , deposi ted the proceeds of s a i d s a l e i n the t r u s t ac- c o u n t of h i s law f irp bu t f a i l e d t o provide t h e Probate Court wi th an a c c o u n t i n g f o r a period of two years a f t e r which h i s law firm was dia-
solved and Respondent removed the t r u s t funds of s a id e s t a t e depos i t i ng them i n an un iden t i f i ed t r u s t account where they were l ev ied upon by the I n t e r a a l Revenue Service f o r taxes due and owing by the Respondent. Respondent f a i l e d to p e t i t i o n the IRS f o r the r e t u r n of t r u s t funds be- l o n g i n g to sa id e s t a t e a s w e l l a s o the r c l i e n t s and f a i l e d to adv i se the c l i e n t regarding the s t a t u s of the funds. Respondent's commingling of t h e funds r e s u l t e d i n a conversion of the funds by opera t ion of the IRS l i e n . The hearing panel a l s o found, i n regard t o two sepa ra t e a d d i t i o n a l counts charging mfsconduct, t h a t Respondent was r e t a i n e d to p r o b a t e the e s t a t e of the wife and s i s t e r of the deceased s u b j e c t o f
Notice of Addit ional Suspension Car l I¶. Ueideman, Jr., P 22096 Page 2
t he aforementioned es ta te, t h a t Respondent s i m i l a r l y neglected these two a d d i t i o n a l probate ma t t e r s , f a i l i n g to f i l e an accounting and pay
c l a i m s d e s p i t e c o u r t order . The panel found v i o l a t i o n s of GCR 1963, 953 (2-4) and Canone 1, 6 , and 9 of the Code of P ro fes s iona l Respon- e i b i l i t y , to-wit : DR1-102 ( A ) ( 4 ) , and ( 6 ) . DR6-101 ( A ) ( 3 ) and DR9-102 (A) (2 ) and (B) (3 ) and (4).
Dated: February 1, 1 9 8 4