MEMBERS MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. CHAIRPERSON LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD VICE-CHAIRPERSON REV. DR. LOUIS J. PRUES SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER
PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS JASON M. TURKISH
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR — KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL — SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR —
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER — JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY —
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147
PHONE: 313-963-5553
www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent After Remand)
Case No. 20-51-GA Notice Issued: November 30, 2021 Lisa Jeanne Peterson, P 71365, Norman, Oklahoma, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #1
Reprimand, Effective November 30, 2021 The Grievance Administrator filed Formal Complaint 20-51-GA alleging that respondent committed professional misconduct when she improperly held earned funds in her IOLTA and failed to respond to a demand for information from a disciplinary authority. In response, respondent filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) asserting that the Administrator’s formal complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On December 4, 2020, Tri-County Hearing Panel #1 granted respondent’s motion for summary disposition and dismissed the formal complaint in its entirety.
The Grievance Administrator petitioned for review and the Attorney Discipline Board conducted review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118. On June 24, 2021, the Board issued an order that vacated the hearing panel’s December 4, 2020 order and remanded this matter to the hearing panel for hearing on the charges in the formal complaint.
Thereafter, respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand, pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), that was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon respondent’s admissions, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when she left funds in her IOLTA for a period longer than permitted by the rules.
Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent deposited funds into her IOLTA in an amount in excess of the amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees or to obtain a waiver of services, charges, or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f). Also in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, all remaining allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint were dismissed.
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.00.