MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DER WIELE 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 DISBARMENT (By Consent)
Case Nos. 16-99-GA; 16-125-AI Notice Issued: February 27,2017 Charles T. Busse, P 49770, Rochester, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #76.
Disbarment, Effective February 25, 20171 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a 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. The stipulation contains respondent's admissions and plea of no contest that he committed professional misconduct in his representation of two clients in a Liquor Control Commission appeal; one client in a criminal matter; and nine separate clients in immigration matters. The stipulation further contains respondent's acknowledgment that he was convicted of the felonies of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, in violation of 18 USC § 371; Bribery of a Public Official, in violation of 18 USC §§ 201 (b)(1 )(A), (B) and (C); Tax Evasion, in violation of 26 USC § 7201; and Failure to Report Currency Transactions of more than $10,000, ·in violation of 31 USC § 5324(b)(1).
Based upon respondent's admissions, plea of no contest and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to render competent representation to his clients, in violation of MRPC 1.1; handled legal matters without preparation adequate in the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (b); neglected his clients' legal matters, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek the lawful objective of his clients through reasonably available means permitted by law and the rules of professional conduct, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to communicate with his clients regarding the status of their legal matters, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to communicate with his clients to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); charged and/or collected excessive fees, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); failed to communicate the basis or rate of the fee to his clients, in violation for MRPC 1.5(b); entered into a business transaction with his
1 Respondent has been continuously suspended 'from the practice of law in Michigan since November 3,2016. Please Notice of Automatic Interim Suspension issued November 7,2016.
February 27,2017
STATE OF MIClllGAN • ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
Page 2
clients or knowingly acquired an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to his clients, without transmitting the transaction and terms in writing to the clients in a manner that could be reasonably understood by the clients, without giving his clients a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice or independent counsel in the transaction, and without his clients' written consent, in violation of MRPC 1.8(a); failed to refund the advance payment of an unearned fee after termination of the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or failed to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by him, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1); shared legal fees with a nonlawyer, in violation of MRPC S.4{a); engaged in conduct that is disrespectful to a person involved in the legal process, in violation of MRPC 6.S(a); and engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law of a state or of the United States, and ordinance, or tribal law, in violation of MCR 9.104{S). Respondent was also found to have violated MRPC 8.4(a) and(b); and MCR 9.104(1)-(4).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be disbarr from the pra ice law in Michigan. Costs were assessed in the amount of $974.82.