Opinions and Orders

Decision Information

Decision Content

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Attorney Discipline Board

nLEO :.TfOi\NEY OlSClPUNE BOARD

7011 AUG 30 PH 3: 22

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Attorney Grievance Commission,

Petitioner/Appellee, v TIMOTHY H. MCCARTHY, JR., P 74698, Respondent/Appellant. -------------------------------/

Case No. 15-72-GA

ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING PANEL ORDER OF DISBARMENT

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

On February 24, 2017, Ingham County Hearing Panel #5 of the Attorney Discipline Board entered an order of disbarment in this matter. On March 9, 2017, respondent filed a petition for review and petition for stay of discipline. On March 17,2017, the Attorney Discipline Board issued an order denying respondent's request for a stay of discipline.

The Attorney Discipline Board has conducted review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, including review of the record before the hearing panel and consideration of the briefs and arguments presented to the Board at a review hearing conducted on June 21,2017.

NOW THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, IT IS ORDERED that the hearing panel Order of Disbarment issued on February 24, 2017, is AFFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall, on or before, September 28.2017, pay costs incurred by the Board for the review hearing conducted on June 21, 2017 in the amount of $188.66. Costs may be paid by check or money order made payable to the Attorney Discipline

System and submitted to the Attorney Discipline Board, 211 West Fort St., Ste. 1410, Detroit, MI 48226, for proper crediting. (See attached instruction sheet.)

DATED: August 30, 2017

By:

Louann

Board members Louann Van Der Wiele, Rev. Michael Murray, Dulce M. Fuller, James A. Fink, Barbara Williams Forney, Karen D. O'Donoghue, and Michael B. Rizik, Jr. concur in this decision. I ,

Board members John W;. Inhulsen, and Jonathan 'E; Lauderbach were 'ab'semt 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.