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 RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITION (By Consent)
Case No. 17-45-GA Notice Issued: November 15, 2017 Elizabeth J. Ollgaard, P 71436, Farmington Hills, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #53.
Reprimand, Effective November 15, 2017. The Grievance Administrator filed a three-count formal complaint alleging that respondent neglected appeals to the Social Security Administration for three separate clients. The parties filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand With Condition, 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 pleas of no contest contained in the parties' stipulation, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct as set forth in all three counts of the formal complaint. Specifically, respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to her, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of her clients through reasonably available means permitted by law and these rules, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her clients, in violation of MRPC 1.3; and failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1 )-(3) and MRPC 8.4(c).
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. Costs were assessed in the amount of $757.50.