MEMBERS LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD CHAIRPERSON ALAN GERSHEL VICE-CHAIRPERSON REV. DR. LOUIS J. PRUES SECRETARY PETER A. SMIT LINDA M. ORLANS
JASON M. TURKISH ANDREAS SIDIROPOULOS, MD KATIE STANLEY TISH VINCENT
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147 PHONE: 313-963-5553
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR — KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL — SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR —
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER — JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY —
www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 22-39-GA Notice Issued: April 27, 2023 Frederick J. Blackmond, P 29696, Lansing, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #2
Suspension - 90 Days, Effective May 1, 2023 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of 90-Day Suspension With Conditions, pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains respondent’s admission to the factual allegations and allegations of misconduct set forth in the formal complaint filed by the Administrator, in its entirety. Specifically, respondent admitted that he committed professional misconduct during his representation of a criminal defendant by failing to appear for his client’s first scheduled preliminary examination, appearing to be under the influence of an unknown substance on the days of two other scheduled hearings, and conceding on the record at the last hearing, that he was not in a condition to proceed.
Based on respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to competently represent his client, in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); failed to seek the lawful objectives of the client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to adequately keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days, effective May 1, 2023, as agreed to by the parties. The panel also ordered that respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $772.74.