NOTICE OF REPRIMAND
(By Consent)
Case No. 24-10-GA
Notice Issued: May 20, 2024
Keith W. Turpel, P 27605, Kalamazoo, Michigan
Reprimand, Effective May 18, 2024
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained respondent’s no contest plea to the factual allegations and charges of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint in its entirety, namely that respondent committed professional misconduct during his tenure as a public defender with the Kalamazoo Public Defender’s office when he was appointed to represent a defendant in a felony murder and first-degree child abuse matter.
Based upon respondent's no contest plea as set forth in the parties' stipulation, the panel found that respondent failed to adequately prepare for a case under the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1(b); neglected a matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; made false statements of material fact to a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and 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 panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $925.94.