BOARD MEMBERS JOHN L..COTE. CHAIRPERSON LEO A. FARHAT MSGR. CLEMENT H . KERN DAVID BAKER LEWIS. SECRETARY FRANK J . MCDEVITT. D . 0 . WILLIAM G . REAMON LYNN H . SHECTER. VICE-CHAIRPERSON
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. BOX I 4 9 DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48231
J O H N F. X.DWAIHY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR L GENERAL COUNSEL
SUITE 1260 3 3 3 W. FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 6 TELEPHONE:(^^^) 9 6 3 - 5 5 5 3
NOTICE OF SUSPENS ION
RONALD MARCHIONE (P 23550), 2614 Niles Ave., S t . Joseph, M I , 49085, by Attorney Disc ip l ine Board 36th C i r c u i t ~ e a r i n gP anel "A".
(11 Suspension ; (2) For a period of one hundred e ighty days (180); (3) Ef fec t ive Apr i l 7 , 1983.
The hearing panel made t h e following f indings: Respondent neglected t h r e e cr iminal appeals f o r per iods up t o t h r e e yea r s a f t e r rece iv ing r e t a i n e r f ees and f a i l e d t o answer t h e Grievance Adminis t ra tor ' s reques t f o r inves t iga t ion regarding s a i d appeals.
Respondent neglected a c i v i l matter r e s u l t i n g i n d e f a u l t aga ins t h i s corpora te c l i e n t and a motion t o s e t a s ide d e f a u l t was denied; Respondent received t h e agreed f e e of $450 b u t took no f u r t h e r ac t ion and f a i l e d t o communicate wi th s u b s t i t u t e counsel.
Respondent received a $500 r e t a i n e r , took some ac t ion t o pursue a c i v i l complaint, b u t t h e r e a f t e r neglected t h e mat ter , f a i l e d t o communi- c a t e with t h e c l i e n t r e s u l t i n g i n d ismissa l f o r lack of progress and f a i l - ed t o n o t i f y t h e c l i e n t of s a i d d i smissa l while b i l l i n g t h e c l i e n t f o r c l e a r l y excessive fees . Respondent f i l e d a s i m i l a r s u i t f o r t h e same c l i e n t which was dismissed due t o Respondent's neglec t , y e t charged a c l e a r l y excessive fee and f a i l e d t o no t i fy the c l i e n t regarding t h e s t a t u s and d ismissa l of t h e cause. Respondent f i l e d a c i v i l s u i t on be- h a l f of the daughter of s a i d c l i e n t b u t f a i l e d t o provide a n o t i c e of exper t witnesses and f a i l e d t o prepare f o r t r i a l , agreeing t o dismiss t h e ac t ion without t h e knowledge and consent of the c l i e n t who t r a v e l l e d from the S t a t e of Texas t o a t t e n d t r i a l and Respondent misrepresented t h a t t h e s u i t had been s e t t l e d f o r $250 t o conceal d ismissa l and mishandling of the matter; Respondent then b i l l e d t h e parents of s a i d c l i e n t f o r c l e a r l y excessive f e e s p lus cos t s .
Respondent entered i n t o an agreement with a land c o n t r a c t vendee indebted t o h i s c l i e n t s and obtained i n h i s own name, by assign- ment, the vendee's i n t e r e s t ; s a i d vendee was i n d e f a u l t and was s u b j e c t t o enforcement of an acce le ra t ion c lause . Respondent prepared prom- i s s o r y notes t o t a l l i n g $11,200 c a l l i n g f o r payment without i n t e r e s t by
Notice of Suspension In r e Ronald Marchione Page Two
Respondent, s a i d acquired personal i n t e r e s t having impaired h i s p ro fess iona l judgment. Respondent d id not advise s a i d c l i e n t t h a t they should seek in - dependent counsel, refused t o honor s a i d note , and f a i l e d t o answer a reques t f o r inves t iga t ion regarding s a i d t r ansac t ion . The c l i e n t s sued f o r possession of s a i d r e a l proper ty and Respondent agreed t o r e tu rn the proper ty by deed and d e l i v e r s a i d deed and keys i n exchange f o r the two promissory notes evidencing Respondent's ob l iga t ion ; t h e c l i e n t s agreed and prepared t o consumate s a i d exchange b u t were l a t e r confronted with an added condi t ion , to-wit: t h a t they would no t proceed with grievances made aga ins t Respon- dent inc luding grievances t o t a l l y unre la ted t o s a i d land con t rac t matter . Respondent thereby attempted t o inf luence a pending grievance inves t iga t ion by exer t ing f i n a n c i a l and/or l e g a l pressure on complainant.
Respondent neglected a divorce mat ter , f a i l e d t o communicate t h e s t a t u s of the case t o the c l i e n t and f a i l e d t o answer t h e reques t f o r in - v e s t i g a t i o n i n regard the re to .
The hearing panel found v i o l a t i o n s of the following d i s c i p l i n a r y r u l e s : GCR 1963, 953 (1-4) and (7) and 962.2 (b), Canons 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the Code of Profess ional Responsib i l i ty , to-wit: DR1-102(A), DR2-106(A), DRS-101 ( A ) , DR5-104 (A) , DR6-101 ( A ) ( 3 ) and DR7-101 (A) (1-3) . The panel noted no p r i o r d i s c i p l i n a r y ac t ion .
( --8 /- 71o -.-: 10MN F. X DVfAIHY, Executive Dlr 'i-1.g~ & General Counsel DAV13 B;"\KE2 LZGJIS, Secretary of ?5e P."Lirn:ney Cis~::;;li-e ,:?<>-Y<
Dated:
Apr i l 8, 1983