Opinion
Miscellaneous Case No. 06-X-50874.
February 5, 2008
ORDER
On June 29, 2006, Jack A. Gibson, Jr. was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Michigan for a period of one (1) year, commencing June 29, 2006, and reciprocally in the United States District Court and the United States Bankruptcy Court on September 20, 2006. On October 25, 2007, Mr. Gibson was reinstated by the Attorney Discipline Board to practice law in the state courts of Michigan. On November 15, 2007, Mr. Gibson submitted a formal request to this Court seeking reinstatement to the practice of law in the federal courts within the Eastern District of Michigan. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 83.22(e)(1), Bernard A. Friedman, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Michigan, assigned Mr. Gibson's application for relief to this panel for its consideration.
On February 4, 2008, the panel held a hearing at which time a presentation was made by Mr. Gibson's counsel, including the admission of Exhibit One. Mr. Gibson answered questions posed by the panel. Counsel from the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission indicated the Commission had no objection to the reinstatement of Mr. Gibson's privilege to practice law within this federal district.
This panel, after having given full consideration to all of the information within the official record in this matter and the presentations made during the hearing, has determined that (1) Mr. Gibson has satisfied all of the standards for reinstatement to practice law within this federal district, as required by the Local Rules of this Court, specifically E.D. Mich. LR 83.22(i)(2), and (2) that the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission through its Grievance Administrator, Robert L. Agacinski, has no objection to the request for reinstatement.
Accordingly, it is the unanimous decision of this panel that Jack A. Gibson, Jr. be immediately reinstated to practice law in the federal courts within the Eastern District of Michigan without any limitations except those that are imposed upon him by law, the Local Rules of the Court, and the prevailing standards of ethics.
IT IS SO ORDERED.