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 MICHIGAN 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. 17-146-JC Notice Issued: January 19, 2018 Raymond W. Szmagaj, P 51159, Union lake, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #104.

Reprimand, Effective January 19, 2018 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained respondent's admission that he was convicted in a matter titled in People of the State of Michigan v Raymond Walter Szmagaj, II, 14A-4 District Court Case No. 174-0025, of operating with blood alcohol content of .17 or more, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCl 257.6251 C. Based on respondent's conviction and his admission in the stipulation, it was established that respondent engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state, in violation of MCR 9.104(5); and engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or a violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflected adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b).

I n accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be repriman ed. Costs were as ssed in the amount of $769.96.

 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.