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 149 DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48231
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION
J O H h '. X.DWAlHY EXECUT,VE DIRECTOR S GENERAL COUNSEL
SUITE 1 2 6 0 3 3 3 W. FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 6 T E L E P H O N E : ( ~ I ~9 )6 3 - 5 5 5 3
0. LEE MOLETTE (P 17877), 2121 F i r s t National Bldg., De t ro i t , M I , 48226, by Order of t h e Michigan Supreme Court denying Respondent's app l i ca t ion f o r leave t o appeal t h e decis ion of the Disc ip l ine Board. The Board increased t h e panel d i s c i p l i n e of reprimand t o a suspension of 30 days which was stayed pending Respondent's appeal t o t h e Supreme Court. (1) Suspension;
(2) For a per iod of t h i r t y (30) days; (3) Effec t ive December 2 , 1982. The Board found t h a t Respondent was re t a ined t o c o l l e c t prop- e r t y damages, t h a t Respondent f a i l e d t o communicate with t h e c l i e n t s re- garding the s t a t u s of t h e ma t t e r , t h a t Respondent promised t h a t s u i t would be f i l e d , t h a t approximately two years l a t e r , Respondent wrote t o t h e c l i e n t i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the matter would be s e t t l e d wi th in s i x months and there- a f t e r f i l e d s u i t one day before e x p i r a t i o n of the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s , t h a t Respondent agreed t o a discontinuance of t h e cause with p re jud ice and without c o s t s without t h e c l i e n t having received se t t l ement payment. P r i o r t o hearings by t h e d i s c i p l i n e hear ing panel , Respondent p a i d the p l a i n t i f f - c l i e n t $1,440 i n l i e u of a se t t lement ( the c l i e n t was t o rece ive an add i t iona l $500 from t h e defendant ' s insurance c a r r i e r ) . Respondent a l s o f a i l e d t o answer two separa te Requests f o r Inves t iga t ion . The Grievance Administrator appealed arguing t h a t reprimand was insuf- f i c i e n t i n l i g h t of a previous record of misconduct and t h a t "mi t iga t ion" of Respondent's se t t l ement with t h e c l i e n t p r i o r t o panel proceedings was i r r e l e v a n t . I t was noted t h a t Respondent had received four p r i o r reprimands between 1976 and 1979.
The Board noted t h a t every e f f o r t should always be made t o make f u l l r e s t i t u t i o n , b u t t h a t such e f f o r t s a r e considered a s mitiga- t i o n , not exculpat ion. Costs were assessed i n the amount of $247.60.
. . ., ( w p F . X. CVlhlHY, Executive 5 G:>ncr?..ld :>~~n:j.):
~imcd 3Av:o c..,,:-;? At+&r;-,ey 2i:-ciii.::~..,
. . . - -.-- ------ .+* i-p <<{ i h ~ 3
----. . ., ..-; , _ i, ,., :,