Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. CHAIRPERSON LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD VICE-CHAIRPERSON REV. DR. LOUIS J. PRUES SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER

PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS JASON M. TURKISH

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR

ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147

PHONE: 313-963-5553

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION Case No. 21-31-RD Notice Issued: January 5, 2022 Charles PT Phoenix, P 61096, Naples, Florida, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #81

Suspension - Two Years, Effective January 4, 2022 The Grievance Administrator filed a notice of filing of reciprocal discipline pursuant to MCR 9.120(C) that attached a certified copy of an opinion and order suspending respondent’s license to practice law in Florida for two years entered by the Supreme Court of Florida on January 28, 2021, effective 30 days after issuance, in a matter titled The Florida Bar v Charles Paul-Thomas Phoenix, SC17-585. Upon receipt of respondent’s timely objection to the Board’s Order Regarding Imposition of Reciprocal Discipline and request for a hearing, this matter was assigned to Tri-County Hearing Panel #81, pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(3), for disposition.

After considering respondent’s objection and request for hearing, along with the Administrator’s response, the panel found that a hearing was not necessary because respondent was afforded due process of law in the court of the original proceeding, and that the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan would not be clearly inappropriate. Therefore, the panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for two years, effective January 4, 2022. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,518.50.

 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.