Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

BOAR0 MEMBERS WILLIAM G. REAMON, CHAIRPERSON LYNN H. SHECTER, VICE -CHAIR#RSON BERNADINE N. OENNING. SECRnARY JOHN L . COTE LEO A. FARHAT PATRICK J . KEATING CHARLES C. VINCENT. M. D.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JOHN F. X. OWAIHY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & GENERAL COUNSEL

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

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION FILE NO. DP-36/82

ROSS JOHN FAZIO, P13325, 1056 Penobscot Building, D e t r o i t , Michigan 48226, by the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board inc reas ing a hea r ing panel suspension.

( 1) ( 2 ) (3 )

Suspension For a per iod of 121 Days E f f e c t i v e June 24, 1983 (AS p rev ious ly ind ica t ed i n the in t e r im n o t i c e dated June 29, 1983).

The H e a r i n g Panel found t h a t : Respondent was r e t a i n e d i n J u l y , 1980 t o p roba te an e s t a t e , and was appointed S p e c i a l , and l a t e r , General Represen ta t ive , and a n inventory was f i l e d i n December, 1980. An a t t e m p t t o s e l l the deceden t ' s house was made and , i n A p r i l , 1981, t he i n h e r i t a n c e tax was paid. The rea f t e r , d e s p i t e repea ted a c o n t a c t Respondent by te lephone and i n w r i t i n g , complaina unab le t o r ece ive s a t i s f a c t o r y response regard ing the s t a t u s of the m a t t e r . Complainants h i r e d subs ti tu t e counse l to have Respondent removed a s Representa t ive . Respondent f a i l e d to answer the r e q u e s t f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n and formal complaint. He f u r t h e r f a i l e d t o appear a t t h e panel o r Board hear ings . The panel imposed suspensions of 30 d a y s a n d 60 days ( t o t a l of 90 consecut ive days) . The Board increased t h e d i s c i p l i n e t o a suspens ion of 121 days, n o t i n g i n i t s op in ion , Respondent' s p r i o r record of misconduct, the s e v e r i t y of the n e g l e c t

and Respondent 's f a i l u r e t o answer o r appear . Respondent's app l i ca - t i o n f o r l eave to appea l was denied by the Michigan Supreme Court.

F A '

Da ted :

 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.