Opinions and Orders

Decision Information

Decision Content

STATE OF MICHIGAN Attorney Discipline Board i In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of JOSE A. SANDOVAL, P 57274,

Petitioner. ______________________________.1

17 JUN - 2 AM II: 35

Case No. 15-17-RP

ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING PANEL ORDER OF ELIGIBILITY FOR REINSTATEMENT WITH CONDITIONS

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

This matter is before the Attorney Discipline Board on the filing of the Grievance Administrator's petition seeking review of the hearing panel's Order of Eligibility for Reinstatement With Conditions, entered October 5, 2015, and Order Reaffirming Order of Eligibility for Reinstatement With Conditions issued October 11, 2016, after remand. The Attorney Discipline Board has conducted review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, including review of the entire record before the panel and consideration of the briefs and arguments presented by the parties at a review hearing before the Board on December 14, 2016.

NOW THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, IT IS ORDERED that both the October 5, 2015 and October 11, 2016 hearing panel orders of eligibility for reinstatement with conditions are AFFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Board will issue an order of reinstatement, upon verification that petitioner has satisfied the following conditions:

A.

B.

Recertification by the State of Michigan Board of Law Examiners.

Payment of bar dues in accordance with Rules 2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules concerning the State Bar of Michigan.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is not eligible to practice law in Michigan until the Board has issued an order of reinstatement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon petitioner's reinstatement to the practice of law in Michigan, petitioner shall remain subject to the two additional conditions contained in Kent County Hearing Panel #1's October 5, 2015 Order of Eligibility for Reinstatement With Conditions.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

Dated: June 2, 2017

By:

 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.