Opinions and Orders

Decision Information

Decision Content

STATE OF MICHIGAN Attorney Discipline Board

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Attorney Grievance Commission,

v

Petitioner,

WILLIAM L. FETTE, P 13397, Respondent. ______________________~ I

Case No. 10-70-GA

(... c::: r-

CJ1 -0 ::J: Cd' en G.i)

» ----< . :=:::0 .z rr, --<

e'~1 c:..-::I:i=" £2r"1 -o<::::l r-,Z.... ..

= 0:> » .::::0 <:::l

ORDER OF REVOCATION AND RESTITUTION

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

The Grievance Administrator has petitioned the Attorney Discipline Board for review of the order of suspension entered in this matter by Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #2 on October 19, 2010. The Board has conducted review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, which included a review of the record before the hearing panel and consideration of the briefs and arguments submitted by the parties, and the Board is otherwise fully advised;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the attached opinion, discipline in this case is increased from a suspension of 120 days to REVOCATION OF RESPONDENT'S LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW IN MICHIGAN EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 10, 2010, and until further order of the Supreme Court, the Attorney Discipline Board or a hearing panel, and until respondent complies with the requirements of MCR 9.123(B) and (C) and MCR 9.124.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing panel's order that respondent make restitution to Kathy Berglund in the amount of $7,000 is AFFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall, on or before August 13, 2011, pay costs incurred by the Board for the transcript of the review proceedings conducted on January 12, 2011, in the amount of $87.00, along with costs previously assessed. Costs may be paid by check or money order made payable to the State Bar of Michigan but submitted to the Attorney Discipline Board, 211 West Fort St., Ste. 1410, Detroit, M148226, for proper crediting.

By:

DATED: July 15, 2011

-------~.~ ....- - ----------

 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.