Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

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 MICmGAN ArrORNEY 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 ADMIN/STRATOR ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTION/STISECRETARY

www.adbmlch.org

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)

Case No. 17-97-RD Notice Issued: March 8, 2018 David M. Korrey, P 23563, Las Vegas, Nevada, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #63.

Reprimand, Effective March 7, 2018. In a reciprocal discipline proceeding under MCR 9.120(C), the Grievance Administrator filed a certified copy of an Order of SuspenSion with Probation, suspending respondents license to practice law for a period of three months, with the suspension stayed in favor of six months of probation, effective July 11, 2017, entered by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, In the Matter of Discipline of David M. Korrey, Bar No. 6385. The Nevada Supreme Court determined that respondent committed the following misconduct: diligence ([M]RPC 1.3); safekeeping property ([M]RPC 1.15(d»; responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants ([M]RPC 5.3(b»; unauthorized practice of law ([M]RPC 5.5(a)(2»; and misconduct ([M]RPC 8.4(a». The respondent and the Grievance Administratorfiled a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains the parties' agreement that a reprimand constitutes comparable discipline in this matter.

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.00.

~a~t( ~ Ma ~ rk -A. -Ar ­mit ­ag ­e ----~'~ Executive Director

 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.