I
B O A R D M E M B E R S FREDERICK G. B U E S S E R , JR. JOHN L. COTE, CHAIRPERSON M S G R . C L E M E N T H. KERN DAVID BAKER LEWIS, SECRETARY FRANK J. MCDEVITT, D. 0 . WILLIAM G. REAMON LYNN H . SHECTER, 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 & GENERAL COUNSEL
SUITE 1260 3 3 3 W . FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 6 T E L E P H O N E : ( ~ I ~9)6 3 - 5 5 5 3
This is to inform the Courts of the State of Michigan of the following Order of Discipline: NOTICE OF REPRIMAND File No. 36292-A ROBERT E. HELM, (P148551, 110 City Hall, Saginaw, Michigan 48601, by the Attorney Discipline Board. (1) Reprimand; (2) Effective August 7, 1980. Findings : That Respondent obtained a property damage settlement acceptable to the client in the amount of $2,500 with an agreed upon fee of $500, plus certain costs, that Respondent had caused the signature of his client to be placed upon the settlement check without the client's knowledge, permission or agreement, that the entire proceeds of said settlement were garnished by a judgment creditor of the client, that Respondent negotiated with said creditor for discharge of the debt in the amount of 112 of the garnished settlement funds, and retained $500 for fees as agreed, and an additional $371 not approved by client, for services rendered regarding the garnishment and costs.
The Panel found that Respondent, by having the signature of his client placed upon the settlement check payable jointly to him and his client, without the client's per- mission, knowledge or agreement, was in violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A)(4) and GCR 953(2)(3) and (41, and that Respondent failed to make diligent and sufficient inquiry as to the whereabouts of his client. Failure to promptly pay over to said client the monies due was deemed to be in violation of DR 9-102(B)(1)(4). The Panel noted Respon- dent's previously unblemished record. On review, . t he Attorney Discipline Board stated in its opinion ' I . . [Respondent] . . . had made a good faich effort to protect the client's fund . . . testimony estab- lished his moral char . ac . t er and professional ability. We hold that the , lack of harm to Complainant,
t '
J
I tk.
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND Robert E. Helm Page Two and Respondent's lack of intent to defraud, deceive or unlawfully profit, mitiga . te . s the gravity of Respondent's technical misconduct . we do not, however, condone Respondent's action, which was 'unprofessional and con- stituted both faulty practice and bad form"'. Respondent's application for leave to appeal the reprimand to the Supreme Court was denied on May 5, 1981. d,<& L, Davi Ba er Lewis, Secretary ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
Date of Issuance:
May 29, 1981