Opinions and Orders

Decision Information

Decision Content

STATE OF MICHIGAN Attorney Discipline Board

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Attorney Grievance Commission,

PetitionerlA ppellee, v DAVID A. MONROE, P 44418, RespondenU Appellant. ______________________~I

Case No. 12-20-GA

ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING PANEL ORDER OF DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

Issued by the Attorney Discipline Board 211 W. Fort St., Ste. 1410, Detroit, MI Livingston County Hearing Panel #1 of the Attorney Discipline Board entered an order in this matter on September 26,2012, disbarring respondent from the practice of law in Michigan effective October 18, 2012, and ordering respondent to make restitution to the complainants in the total aggregate amount of $10,415.00.

The Attorney Discipline Board has conducted review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, including a review of the testimony and exhibits submitted to the panel and consideration of the briefs and arguments presented to the Board at a review hearing conducted November 29,2012.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the attached opinion, the hearing panel order of disbarment and restitution is AFFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall, on or before January 18, 2013, pay costs in the amount of $6,238.86, consisting of costs assessed by the hearing panel in the amount of $6,096.36 and court reporting costs incurred by the Attorney Discipline Boartlin the amount of $142.00 for the review proceedings conducted on November 29,2012. Check or money order shall be made payable to the State Bar of Michigan, but submitted to the Attorney Discipline Board [211 West Fort St., Ste. 1410, Detroit, MI 48226] for proper crediting. (See attached instruction sheet).

DATED: December 20, 2012

By:

Thomas G. Kienbaum, Chairperson

Board members Thomas G. Kienbaum, James M. Cameron, Jr., Rosalind E. Griffin, M.D., Carl E. Ver Beek, Craig H. Lubben, Sylvia P. Whitmer, Ph. D., Lawrence G. Campbell, Dulce M. Fuller and Louann Van Der Wiele concur in this decision.

 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.