Opinions and Orders

Decision Information

Decision Content

STATE OF MICHIGAN Attorney Discipline Board

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Attorney Grievance Commission,

Petitioner/Appellee, KENNETH D. POSS, Case No. 14-16-GA Complainant!A ppellant, v BARRY R. BESS, P 10763, Respondent!A ppellee. ------------------------------~/ ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING PANEL ORDER OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)

Issued by the Attorney Discipline Board 211 W. Fort St., Ste. 1410, Detroit, MI

On December 10, 2014, Tri-County Hearing Panel #56 of the Attorney Discipline Board pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, entered an order suspending respondent's license to practice law in Michigan for a period of 180 days. The panel also ordered him, as a condition precedent to filing a petition for reinstatement, to provide to the Grievance Administrator and the Attorney Discipline Board, a full accounting of the funds held in his client trust accounts with Comerica Bank in January 2007, including the origin, ownership and disbursement of such funds. Complainant petitioned for review on December 19, 2014. Respondent did not file a cross-petition and his suspension went into effect on January 17, 2015.

The Attorney Discipline Board has conducted review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, including the Board's review of the record before the hearing panel and its consideration of the briefs and arguments of the parties at a hearing conducted before the Board.

NOW THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, IT IS ORDERED that the Order of Suspension with Condition (By Consent) entered on December 10, 2014, is AFFIRMED.

DATED: December 22, 2015

By:

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

~.~trĀ·'~ Lawrence G. Campbell, Vice-Chairperson

/

Board members James M. Cameron, Jr., Lawrence G. Campbell, Dulce M. Fuller, Michael Murray, James A. Fink, and John Inhulsen,concur in this decision.

- Board members Rosalind E. Griffin, M;D:,Sylvia P. Whitmer, Ph.D., and Louann Van Der Wiele were absent and did not partiCipate.

 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.