d O M N 8 x D ~ r o h r Execu t ive D i r e c t o r & Cepug,a,l.oCounsel 333 r Fear 5rncCr OETnOll U I C M I C A N -.12a rc~rCmowc. a1309 6 3 5653
T h i s is t o in form t h e C o u r t s o f t h e S t a t e of Michigan o f t h e f o l l o w i n g Order o f D i o c i p l i n e : ., .12 3 L 1, 3 NOTICE OF REPRIMAND 4~Y F i l e N o . 35669-A J
*,i. C.
SHELDON HALPERN (P14560), 515 Monroe, Detroit, M I 48226, by Order o f t h e Michigan Supreme C o u r t r e d u c i n g from a d i s c i p l i n e o f suspens ion o f one (1) month ren- d e r e d by t h e Wayne C i r c u i t Hearing Panel 'Cm8 t h e sus - pension had been a f f i r m e d by t h e D i s c i p l i n e Board.
8
( 11 Reprimand ; ( 2 ) E f f e c t i v e November 25, 1980. The Formal Complaint charged t h a t Respondent f a i l e d t o c a r r y o u t t h e t e rms o f a r e t a i n e r agreement p r o v i d i n g f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a p r i s o n e r i n p a r o l e p roceed ings i n v i o l a t i o n o f Canon 1, DR 1-102 ( A ) , Canon 6 , OR 6-101 (A) ( 3 ) , Canon 7 , OR 7-101 ( A ) , and Supreme Court Rule 15.2. A second c o u n t charged t h a t Reopondent f a i l e d t o answer t h e Grievance Admin- i s t r a t o r ' s Request f o r I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e former Supreme Cour t Rule 15.2 (7 ) and 16.6. The Hearing Pane l found t h a t Respondent d i d n o t perform h i s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e fami ly o f t h e p r i s o n e r , and t h a t Raopondent 's e f f o r t s f e l l s u b s t a n t i a l l y s h o r t o f t h e l e g a l s e r v i c e s promised. Although t h e Panel g r a n t e d Respondent 's Motion to S e t Aside D e f a u l t , t h e y found v i o l a t i o n s o f a l l d i s c i p l i n a r y r u l e s charged i n t h o Complaint , and found no merit f o r t h e d e f e n s e asserted f o r f a i l u r e t o answer t h e Request f o r I n v e s t i - g a t i o n and t h e Formal Complaint , the reby f i n d i n g v i o l a - t ion. o f formar Supreme Cour t Rule 15.2 (7) and 16.6. The At torney D i s c i p l i n e Board approved t h e Respondent 's P e t i t i o n f o r Raview, conducted a h e a r i n g and remanded t h e m a t t e r t o a s p e c i a l master f o r a r e p o r t r egard ing a p p r o p r i a t e l e g a l s e r v i c e s i n a p a r o l e m a t t e r ; t h e Board subsequent ly a f f i r m e d t h e 30 day suspens ion rendered by t h e Panel . Respondent w a s a s s e s s e d c o o t s i n t h e amount o f $750.95. Respondent 's appea l t o t h e Supreme Cour t r e s u l t e d i n r e d u c t i o n of t h e suspens ion t o a reprimand. The Supre- Court s p e c i f i c a l l y noted t h a t t h e f i n d i n g
that ~ e s p o n d e n tf ailed to provide t h e parole board w i t h the views of t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge was n o t supported by the record. 1 .-I David Baker Lewis, Secretary ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
Date of I s s u a n c e :
FEB 6 1081