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 MIClllGAN 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 RECEPTION/STISECRETARY
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION (By Consent}
Case No. 16-84-GA Notice Issued: December 5, 2016 Robert Thomas Sporny, P 66807, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri County Hearing Panel #9.
Reprimand - Effective December 2,2016 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for 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 to the allegations that he committed professional misconduct in his representation of clients in an adverse possession action; by failing to provide additional information to the Grievance Administrator, when requested to do so; and by failing to appear at the Attorney Grievance Commission when subpoenaed.
Based upon respondent's admissions and the stipulation ofthe parties, the panel found that respondent neglected the legal matters, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of his clients, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence while representing his clients, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his clients reasonably informed regarding the status of their legal matters and respond promptly to reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); and knowingly failed to respond the lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1 (a)(2). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3), MRPC 8.4(a), and (c).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded with the condition that he engage in mental health counseling for one year. In accordance with MCR 9.106(5), the discipline in this case was deemed to include restitution, which ,,~nde~t had already paid. Costs were assessed in the amount of $764.72. /~a~ Mark A. Armitage