Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

BOARD MEMBERS: FREDERICK G,. BUESSER. JR. JOHN L. COTE. CHAIRPERSON MSGR. CLEMENT H . KERN DAVID BAKER LEWIS. SECRETARY FRANK 4 . MCDEVITT. D.O. WILLIAM G. REAMON LYNN H . SHECTER. VICE-CHAIRPERSON

STATE OF M I C H I G A N

JOHN F. X . DWAlHY COUNSEL/ADMINISTRATOR

SUITE 1260 333 W. FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226 TELEPHONE: (313) 963-5553

This i s t o inform the Courts of the S t a t e of Michigan of the following f i na l Order of Discipline: ~ Y ~ L / L3- .&5 ~-~A,3 3573b-4, NOTICE OF SUSPENSION 3&o/&-A, 3 L z?L;I-&, 370/3-A

MICHAEL A. THOMAS (P21382), 1824 Guardian Bui 1d ing, Detroi t , MI 48226, by Attorney Discipline Board Oakland County Hearing anel #2, f o r a period of th ree (3 ) years and one (1 ) day, ef fect ivi f January 28, 1980. The Hearing Panel issued the Order of ~ i s c i p ' t i n e pursuant t o a St ipula t ion and Discipl ine Board Order of Consolida- t i on of twenty-three (23) separate f i l e s i nvol v i ng approximately twenty-seven (27) counts of misconduct. Respondent was charged, i n f i v e ( 5 ) separate Formal Complaints, w i t h the following ac t s of misconduct: Criminal conduct resu l t ing in a three-count felony indictment by t he United S t a t e s Government f o r conspiracy t o defraud the government, mail f raud, and removal of papers from a Federal f i l e ; Respondent pleaded gu i l t y t o one (1 ) of sa id counts. Neglect of numerous personal in ju ry matters resu l t ing i n d i smissa l , and, i n several ins tances , loss of a c l i e n t ' s cause of ac t ion , due t o lack of progress and proper prosecution, f a i l u r e t o properly manage and supervise numerous personal in ju ry matters, f a i l ure t o prepare sa id causes f o r t r i a1 , f a i l u r e t o make numerous appearances with o r on behalf of several c l i e n t s and f a i l u r e t o appear a t a scheduled t r i a l . Fai lure t o commence personal in ju ry 1i t i g at ion desp i te promises t o several c l i en t s and repeated mi s re - presenta t ions t o those c l i e n t s regarding t he progress of t h e i r cause. Fraudul en t mi srepresenta t ions t o courts of 1a w and numerous c l i ents regarding: t he taking of defau l t judgments, a1 leged payment of claims, the veraci ty of pleadings, s ignatures , s t i pu l a t i ons and statements ; the Formal Complaints a1 so a1 leged fa1 s e statements made i n response t o the Grievance Administrator 's Request f o r Invest igat ion. Fai 1u re t o respond t o numerous inqui r i e s of various c l i e n t s and f a i l u r e t o explain t o o r no t i fy s a id c l i e n t s of the dismissal of t h e i r causes. The Formal Complaints a l leged viola t ion of t he following d i sc ip l inary ru les : Canon 1 , DR 1-102 (A) (1 ) (4 ) ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) ; Canon 6 , DR 6-101 (A) ( 2 and 3) ; Canon 7, DR 7-101 ( A ) (1- 3) ; Canon 9 , DR 9-102 ( A ) and (B) (4 ) ; Supreme Court Rule 15.2 (1- 4) and (6 ) ; G C R 962.1 and 2 and 953(7). The per t inent rules

prohibit conduct i nvol v i ng di shonesty , fraud , deceit o r mi sre- presentation; conduct prejudi ci a1 t o the administration of jus t ice ; conduct adversely ref1 ecting upon one's f i t ness t o practice 1a w; hand1 ing of a legal matter without adequate preparation; neglect of a legal matter; f a i l u r e to seek the lawful objectives of a c l i e n t ; f a i lu re t o carry out a contract of employment; prejudice or damage t o a c l i e n t - i r ~ t he course of the professional relationship; conduct t h a t exposes the profes- sion or courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, reproach; conduct contrary t o ju s t i ce , e th ics , honesty o r good morals; improper handling of c l i en t funds and fa i lure t o promptly pay or del iver t o a c l i en t funds, secur i t ies , o r other property which the c l i en t i s en t i t l ed to receive and fa i lure t o answer a Request f o r Investigation o r Formal Complaint. Respondent withdrew his Answers t o the various Complaints, and the al legat ions were considered as confessed. The Hearing Panel determined tha t Respondent's misconduct consti tuted violations of each of the aforementioned rules .

David Baker Lewis, Secretary ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

 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.