MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DER WIELE CHAIRPERSON REV. MICHAEL MURRAY VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN
JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE
MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD
STATE OF MIClllGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
211 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1410
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313·'963·5553 I FAX: 313-963·5571
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR . KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRA TOR
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
DISMISSAL Case No. 17-77- GA
Daniel G. Romano, P 49117, Pleasant Ridge, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #79.
Dismissal - Effective February 22, 2018. The undisputed facts in the Formal Complaint establish that the complaining witness hired respondent's law firm to pursue possible wrongful death claims against the City of Detroit and two of its police officers following the shooting and death of her son by Detroit Police Department Officers. While the case was pending, the City of Detroit filed for bankruptcy, which resulted in an automatic stay of the claims. The testimony at the hearing established that the attorney at respondent's law firm that was assigned primary responsibility for handling the matter failed to accurately report to his supervisors the status of the matter, including the failure to file a claim within the statute of limitations or within 30 days following the lifting of the stay. Testimony further established that the attorney actively misrepresented to his supervisors in the firm the status of the case and his actions or inactions with regard to the pendency of the matter and the statute of limitations.
Subsequently, the attorney resigned his employment with respondent's law firm and, upon investigating the status of files, the firm discovered that several matters assigned for handling to the attorney were not being handled appropriately nor were they being reported accurately to firm supervisors.
The panel found that the Grievance Administrator has failed to establish a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct alleged in the formal complaint of (MRPC 1.1 (a); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); and MCR 9.1 04(2) and (3» by a preponderance ofthe evidence. No costs were assessed against respondent.
114« a. ~--Mark A. Armitage Executive Director