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 MIClflGAN ATTORNEY 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 ADMINISTRATOR

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. 17-134-GA Notice Issued: February 15,2018 Dana F. Wilson, P 23899, Hazel Park, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board TriĀ­ County Hearing Panel #67.

Reprimand, Effective February 14, 2018 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to conduct himself with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); and failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $757.71.

Ma~ Mark A. Armitage

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.