MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DERWIELE CHAIRPERSON REV. MICHAEL MURRAY VICE-CHAIRPERSON DULCE M. FULLER SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR.
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 ADMINISTRA TOR
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 16-126-GA Notice Issued: June 1,2017 Thomas N. Strauch, P 38652, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #26.
Suspension - Four Years, Effective June 1, 2017. The Grievance Administrator filed Formal Complaint 16-126-GA, alleging, in six separate counts, that respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of five individual clients in a landlord tenant matter; a personal property recovery case; a divorce action; a real property matter involving a quiet title action; and a criminal matter. The sixth count of the complaint alleged that respondent committed professional misconduct by failing to timely respond to two requests for investigation filed by two of the clients, Joseph King and Jack L. Platt. The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5). On April 5, 2017, after responding to an inquiry by the panel, the parties filed an amended stipulation for consent order of discipline which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel.
Based on respondent's answer to the formal complaint, the pleas of no contest to the paragraphs in the formal complaint, as stated on the record, and the exhibits admitted into evidence at the December 29,2016 hearing, the allegations of misconduct as set forth in the formal complaint were proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, respondent neglected a legal 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 reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to hold client property separate from his own property and failed to deposit client funds in an IOL TA or non-IOL TA, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); failed to deposit legal fees and expenses paid in advance into a client trust account, in violation of MRPC 1.15(g); failed to promptly notify the client when funds or property in which the client had an interest were received, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1); failed to promptly payor deliver funds or other property that the client was entitled to receive, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to return the advance payment of a fee that had not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); and failed to timely
June 1,2017
STATE OF MICHIGAN. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
Page 2
answer two requests for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7), MCR 9.113(A) and (8)(2). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1 )-(3) and MRPC 8.4(a)-(c).
The panel ordered, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that respondent's license to practice law be suspended for a period of four years effective June 1, 2017 (as stipulated by the parties). In addition, the panel ordered respondent to pay restitution totaling $8,739.18 and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1 ,229.30.