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 MIClllGAN 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 ADMIN/STRATOR
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTION/STISECRETARY
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION (By Consent)
Case No. 17-90-GA Notice Issued: December 7,2017 Wright W. Blake, P 37259, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #9.
Reprimand, Effective December 6, 2017. The Grievance Administratorfiled a formal complaint alleging that respondent failed to notify his client of crucial appellate dates in his post-conviction criminal matter. The parties 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 the hearing panel.
Based upon respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent handled a legal matter without preparation adequate 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 his 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 keep his client informed of the status of the matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); and failed to explain the matter to the client to the extend reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision regarding the matter and representation, in violation of 1.4(b). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1) (3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Respondent was also ordered to pay restitution totaling $1,000.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $757.50.
~ A ~ rmit > ark A. a~ Executive Director