BOARD MEMBERS JOHN L..COTE. CHAIRPERSON LEO A . FARHAT WtLLIAM G . REAMON LYNN H . SHECTER. VICE-CHAIRPERSON D r . Bernadine Denning D r . Char les Vincent
JOHN D . HAGY
STATE OF M I C H I G A N
MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. aox 1-19
DETROIT. MICHIGAN 4 8 2 3 1
NOTICE OF REVOCATION
J O H N F. X.OWAIHY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & GENERAL COUNSEL
SUITE I 2 6 0 3 3 3 W-FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 6 TELEPHONE:(^^^) 9 6 3 - 5 5 5 3
.. (P 29189), 5990 Flamingo Road, Jackson, M I , 49201,'
by Attorney Di sc ip l ine Board Wayne County Hearing Panel #7.
(1) (2)
Revocation of l i c e n s e ; E f f e c t i v e November 29, 1983.
The hearing pane l found as fo l lows: Respondent f a i l e d t o Answer t h e Formal Complaint i n t h i s m a t t e r r e s u l t i n g i n e n t r y of a d e f a u l t ; Re- spondent f a i l e d t o appear be fo re t h e panel o r f i l e any respons ive p l ead ings t o t h e n o t i c e s and complaint served upon him, notwithstanding a d d i t i o n a l con tac t by t h e Grievance Administrator i n v i t i n g Respondent t o appear be fo re t h e Administrator t o d i s c u s s s e t t l emen t o r o t h e r d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e complaint ; Respondent was r e t a i n e d t o f i l e a c i v i l a c t i o n a g a i n s t a bu i ld ing c o n t r a c t o r and f a l s e l y represented t o h i s c l i e n t t h a t he had s t a r t e d a law s u i t by f i l i n g a complaint and summons i n t h e 1 2 t h D i s t r i c t Court i n Jackson, Michigan; t h e c l i e n t was advised t h a t t he s u i t had been f i l e d and was proceeding i n good f a s h i o n when no law s u i t had been f i l e d ; t h a t Respondent f a i l e d t o t a k e any a c t i o n whatsoever w i th r e spec t t o pursuing s a i d claim, a l though he cont inued t o r ep re sen t t h a t h i s c l i e n t ' s i n t e r e s t s were being served; t h a t Re- spondent f a l s e l y advised h i s c l i e n t s t h a t a purported se t t l emen t had been reached i n t h e amount of $3,000 and t h a t an o rde r of execut ion had been ob- t a i n e d from t h e D i s t r i c t Court when no such se t t l emen t o r document had been obta ined . The panel found v i o l a t i o n s of GCR 1963, 953(1-4)(7) and 962.2 ( b ) and Canons 1, 6 , and 7 of t h e Code of P r o f e s s i o n a l Respons ib i l i t y . The panel noted a p r i o r d i s c i p l i n a r y h i s t o r y inc luding 5 d i s c i p l i n a r y f i l e s which r e s u l t e d i n a suspension of 2 yea r s e f f e c t i v e June 3, 1983. Costs were assessed i n t he amount of $186.67.
/'
- SBWN F. X DW?,I\.FY, Executive 0i+
Dated: -:j.2T; 2 1: 1983