State Bar Grievance Administrator v. Williams

Michigan Supreme Court

State Bar Grievance Administrator v. Williams

240 N.W.2d 246, 396 Mich. 166, 1976 Mich. LEXIS 246

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 1, 1976

DocketDocket 55866

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 240 N.W.2d 246 (State Bar Grievance Administrator v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Bar Grievance Administrator v. Williams, 240 N.W.2d 246, 396 Mich. 166, 1976 Mich. LEXIS 246 (Mich. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The facts and proceedings out of which this appeal arose are fully set forth in our opinion remanding the matter to the State Bar Grievance Board for its statement of reasons underlying its modification of the discipline imposed upon respondent after hearings before Wayne County Hearing Panels No. 6 and No. 11. State Bar Grievance Administrator v Williams, 394 Mich 5; 228 NW2d 222 (1975). We are in agreement with the board’s opinion after remand that the discipline imposed by Hearing Panel No. 11 was insufficient in view of the findings of that panel which were affirmed by the board. Pursuant to our power under Grievance Board Rule 16.23(h) to make such order as may be deemed appropriate, and because considerable time has elapsed since the October 23, 1973, order of Hearing Panel No. 11, we modify the discipline imposed upon respondent to suspension until October 23, 1978. This action is taken in view of the facts on record and the equities of this particular case. Respondent will be entitled to petition for readmission five [168]*168years from the date that his license to practice law might have been appropriately ordered revoked. State Bar Rule 15, § 7(b). In all other respects, the order of the grievance board is affirmed.

Kavanagh, C. J., and Williams, Levin, Coleman, and Fitzgerald, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The facts and proceedings out of which this appeal arose are fully set forth in our opinion remanding the matter to the State Bar Grievance Board for its statement of reasons underlying its modification of the discipline imposed upon respondent after hearings before Wayne County Hearing Panels No. 6 and No. 11. State Bar Grievance Administrator v Williams, 394 Mich 5; 228 NW2d 222 (1975). We are in agreement with the board’s opinion after remand that the discipline imposed by Hearing Panel No. 11 was insufficient in view of the findings of that panel which were affirmed by the board. Pursuant to our power under Grievance Board Rule 16.23(h) to make such order as may be deemed appropriate, and because considerable time has elapsed since the October 23, 1973, order of Hearing Panel No. 11, we modify the discipline imposed upon respondent to suspension until October 23, 1978. This action is taken in view of the facts on record and the equities of this particular case. Respondent will be entitled to petition for readmission five [168]*168years from the date that his license to practice law might have been appropriately ordered revoked. State Bar Rule 15, § 7(b). In all other respects, the order of the grievance board is affirmed.

Kavanagh, C. J., and Williams, Levin, Coleman, and Fitzgerald, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 N.W.2d 246, 396 Mich. 166, 1976 Mich. LEXIS 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-bar-grievance-administrator-v-williams-mich-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack