Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

I

B O A R D M E M B E R S F R E D E R I C K G. B U E S S E R , J R . J O H N L. COT^, C H A I R P E R S O N

MSGR. C L E M E N T H. K E R N DAVID BAKER L E W I S , SECRETARY FRANK J . MCDEVITT, D. 0 . WILLIAM G. R E A M O N LYNN H . S H E C T E R , V I C E - C H A I R P E R S O N

STATE OF MICHIGAN

J O H N F. X . DWAIHY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR S GENERAL C O U N S E L

SUITE 1 2 6 0 3 3 3 W . FORT S T R E E T DETROIT, MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 6 T E L E P H O N E : ( J I ~ )9 6 3 - 5 5 5 3

This is to inform the Courts of the State of Michigan of the following Notice of Discipline: NOTICE OF REVOCATION File No. DP-201180 ?HOMAS M. COSTELLO, SR., (P122461, (admitted to the Michigan State Bar in 1952 1, 29715 Briarbank, Southfield, MI 48075, by Attorney Di2xpline Board Oakland Circuit Hearing Panel "B" . (1) Revocation; (2) Effective May 22, 1981. Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to four counts of misconduct and sutxnitted his resignation. The hearing panel entered its order of revocation pursuant to GCR 964.13. The admitted misconduct included filing of a probate inventory by Respondent which he knew to be false. A second count involved conversion of $10,000 in client funds. The third count involve misrepresentations to a client in a probate matter and a conversion of estate assets by Respondent to his own use. The fourth count charges, that in a separate probate matter, Respondent was removed as executor for failing to file a proper accounting and that Respondent misappropriated approximately $80,000 from said estate to his o m u se and benefit, and that Respondent, although ordered to do so by the court, failed to turn over and surrender to the successor personal representative the assets of said estate in his possession and failed to account for said property. The admitted misconduct constitutes violation of GCR 953 and Canons 1, 6 and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Date of Issuance:J UL 2 2 1981

David Baker Lewis, Secretary ATIDRNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

 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.