Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DERWIELE 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 EXECVTlVE DIRECTOR WENDY A. NEELEY DEPVTY 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

www.adbmlch.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION (Pending Appeal)

Case No. 17-39-GA Notice Issued: November 28,2017 John P. Lozano, P 52862, Saginaw, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #1.

Suspension - 90 Days, Effective November 28, 2017. Based on respondent's default, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct during his handling of a civil lawsuit and by failing to respond to a request for investigation.

Specifically, the hearing panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek the client's lawful objectives through reasonably available means permitted by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to notify his client of all settlement offers, 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); in the course of representing a client, knowingly made a false statement of material fact to a third person, in violation of MRPC 4.1; and failed to answer a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.1 04(7), MCR 9.113(A), and (B)(2). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1}-(3} and MRPC 8.4(a)-(c).

The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days. The Grievance Administrator filed a timely petition for review and this matter has been scheduled for hearing before the Attorney Discipline Board.

~a~ Mark A. Armitage Executive Director

 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.