State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board
In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Brian D. Albritton, P46197, ADB Case No. 23-14-RP
Petitioner
Notice is given that Brian D. Albritton (P46197) has filed a petition with the Michigan Supreme Court, the Attorney Discipline Board, and the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking reinstatement as a member of the State Bar and restoration of his license to practice law in accordance with MCR 9.124(A). In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Brian D. Albritton (P46197), ADB Case No. 23-14-RP.
Effective Oct. 31, 1998, the petitioner was reprimanded for failure to answer a request for investigation in ADB Case No. 98-29-GA. The grievance administrator filed a petition for review. Effective Oct. 6, 1999, the board increased the discipline to a 30-day suspension. The board also reversed dismissal of a count and found that the respondent knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.
Effective Oct. 7, 2000, the petitioner was reprimanded by consent in ADB Case No. 00-36-GA. The panel found that the respondent engaged in neglect, failure to communicate, failure to execute a written fee agreement in a contingency matter and entered into an improper loan with a client.
Effective March 28, 2000, the petitioner was reprimanded in ADB Case No. 99-14-GA. The panel found that the petitioner failed to notify his client when he received funds on the client’s behalf and failed to provide a full accounting of the funds when requested by the client.
Effective Feb. 22, 2003, the petitioner was suspended for 90 days in ADB Case No. 00-200-GA. The hearing panel found that the petitioner failed to promptly notify his client of receipt of settlement funds, failed to promptly deliver the funds, and failed to answer a request for investigation. The hearing panel reprimanded the petitioner. The grievance administrator appealed, and the board entered an order of 90-day suspension.
Effective Dec. 30, 2003, the petitioner’s license was revoked in ADB Case No. 03-86-GA. The petitioner failed to file a more definite answer to the formal complaint and failed to appear at the hearing. The panel found that the petitioner engaged in neglect, failed to provide his client with truthful information, failed to return his client’s file, failed to refund an unearned fee, and failed to cooperate with the Attorney Grievance Commission.
The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the reinstatement petition to Tri-County Hearing Panel #16. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, June 7, 2023, commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the Attorney Discipline Board at 333 W. Fort St., Ste. 1700, in Detroit (on the corner of Cass and Fort Streets).
In the interest of maintaining the high standards imposed upon the legal profession as conditions for the privilege to practice law in this state and of protecting the public, the judiciary, and the legal profession against conduct contrary to such standards, the petitioner will be required to establish his eligibility for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence.
Any interested person may appear at the hearing and request to be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement.
Any person having information bearing on the petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:
Emily A. Downey
Senior Associate Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
755 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48084
313.961.6585
Requirements of the Petitioner
The petitioner is required to establish by clear and convincing evidence the following:
1. He desires in good faith to be restored to the privilege to practice law in this state;
2. The term of the suspension or revocation of his license, whichever is applicable, has elapsed;
3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his suspension or revocation;
4. He has complied fully with the terms of the order of discipline;
5. His conduct since the order of discipline has been exemplary and above reproach;
6. He has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the Bar and will conduct himself in conformity with those standards;
7. He can safely be recommended to the public, the courts, and the legal profession as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and, in general, to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the court;
8. That if he has been out of the practice of law for three years or more, he has been recertified by the Board of Law Examiners; and
9. He has reimbursed or has agreed to reimburse the Client Protection Fund any money paid from the fund as a result of his conduct. Failure to fully reimburse as agreed is grounds for revocation of a reinstatement.
State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board
In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Valerie L. Lippman, P43619, ADB Case No. 23-15-RP
Petitioner
Notice is given that Valerie L. Lippman (P43619) has filed a petition with the Michigan Supreme Court, the Attorney Discipline Board, and the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking reinstatement as a member of the State Bar and restoration of her license to practice law in accordance with MCR 9.124(A). In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Valerie L. Lippman (P43619), ADB Case No. 23-15-RP.
Effective Dec. 20, 2000, the petitioner was suspended for 180 days in ADB Case No. 00-27-GA per the stipulation for consent order of discipline filed by the petitioner and the grievance administrator in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The panel found in three immigration matters that the petitioner made false statements to her clients regarding the status of their matters and failed to keep her clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters. The panel also found in an immigration employment matter that the petitioner failed to timely file her client’s documents and failed to inform her client of the delay.
Effective Dec. 20, 2000, the petitioner was suspended for 18 months in 01-115-GA per the stipulation for consent order of discipline filed by the petitioner and the grievance administrator in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The panel found that the petitioner neglected her clients’ legal matters, failed to keep her clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters, made false statements to her clients, failed to take prompt action to rectify the consequence of her client’s false testimony in an immigration matter, and made false statements in her answers to the requests for investigation.
The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the reinstatement petition to Tri-County Hearing Panel #16. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday, June 8, 2023, commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the Attorney Discipline Board at 333 W. Fort St., Ste. 1700, in Detroit (on the corner of Cass and Fort Streets).
In the interest of maintaining the high standards imposed upon the legal profession as conditions for the privilege to practice law in this state and of protecting the public, the judiciary, and the legal profession against conduct contrary to such standards, the petitioner will be required to establish her eligibility for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence.
Any interested person may appear at the hearing and request to be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement.
Any person having information bearing on the petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:
Mary A. Bowen
Associate Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
755 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48084
313.961.6585
Requirements of the Petitioner
The petitioner is required to establish by clear and convincing evidence the following:
1. She desires in good faith to be restored to the privilege to practice law in this state;
2. The term of the suspension or revocation of her license, whichever is applicable, has elapsed;
3. She has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of her suspension or revocation;
4. She has complied fully with the terms of the order of discipline;
5. Her conduct since the order of discipline has been exemplary and above reproach;
6. She has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the Bar and will conduct herself in conformity with those standards;
7. She can safely be recommended to the public, the courts, and the legal profession as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and, in general, to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the court;
8. That if she has been out of the practice of law for three years or more, she has been recertified by the Board of Law Examiners; and
9. She has reimbursed or has agreed to reimburse the Client Protection Fund any money paid from the fund as a result of her conduct. Failure to fully reimburse as agreed is grounds for revocation of a reinstatement.