Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

BOARD MEMBERS FREDERICK G. BUESSER. JR. JOHN L. COT^. CHAIRPERSON

MSGR. CLEMENT H. KERN DAVID BAKER LEWIS. SECRETARY FRANK J. MCDEVITT. 0 . 0 . WILLIAM G. REAMON LYNN H. SHECTER. VICE-CHAIRPERSON

STATE O F M I C H I G A N

JOHN F X . DWAIHY COUNSEL/ADMINISTRATOR

SUITE 1 2 6 0 3 3 3 W. FORT STREET DETROIT, MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 6

TELEPHONE: (3131 9 6 3 - 5 5 5 3

This i s t o inform the Courts o f the State o f Michigan o f the f o l l o wing f in al Order o f D i s c i p l i n e: NOTICE OF SUSPENSION F i l e No. 36454 JAMES H. K E l EDY (P15880), 268 Washington Square Plaza, Royal Oak, M I 48067, b y t h e Attorney D i sc i p l i n e Board, increasing

the d i s c i p l i n e rendered by Wayne C i r c u i t Hearing Panel #12 o f the D i s c i p l i n e Board, pursuant t o the P e t i t i o n f o r Review f i l e d by the Grievance Administrator. Supreme Court reduced suspension t o 25 days.

( 1) Suspension; (2 ) For a per iod o f 25 days; (3 ) E f f e c t i v e June 17, 1980. Respondent was charged i n a two-count Complaint wi th: f a i l u r e t o take any a c t i o n i n pursuing a Worker's Compensation c la im and f a i l u r e t o comnunicate w i t h the c l i e n t i n sa id case regarding the s ta tus o f the claim; f a i l u r e t o respond t o the Grievance Admin is t ra tor 's Request f o r Inves t iga t ion . The Formal Complaint charged v i o l a t i o n s o f Canon 1, DR1-102(A) (1 ), Canon 6, DR6-101 (A) ( 3 ) , Canon 7, DR7-101(1) (2) , and GCR 1963, 962.1 and .2.

and 953(7).

The Hearing Panel found t h a t the a l l ega t i ons i n the Formal Complaint were proven by preponderance o f the evidence and t ha t Respondent v i o l a t e d Canon 6 and Canon 7 of the Code o f Professional Respons ib i l i ty , as we l l as GCR 962.1 and .2 and GCR 953(7). The Panel considered previous misconduct, t o w i t : a one-year suspension

and a Reprimand and rendered a d i s c i p l i n e o f Reprimand. The Grievance Admin is t ra tor pe t i t i oned the Board f o r review, c la iming abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n by the Panel and inappropr ia te d i s c i p l i n e i n 1i g h t o f previous misconduct. Respondent appeal ed the Board increase

t o the Supreme Court which reduced the suspension t o t ime served.

David Baker iew i s, Secretary ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

December 1, 1980

 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.