The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board increased a 179 suspension imposed by an Upper Peninsula County Hearing Panel by a day.

The board noted that the attorney had defaulted in the several client-re lated matters but rejected the Grievance Administrat or’s call for a one-year suspension

Our review of the record leaves us with the impression that this is a case in which discipline should be imposed for respondent’s serious neglect, failure to seek her clients’ objectives, lack of diligence and promptness, failure to return papers upon termination, failure to properly account for client funds on request, failure to refund unearned fees, failure to answer three requests for investigation and appear for a sworn statement. It is not a case in which discipline should be imposed for making dishonest statements to a client, given the absence of the specific rule violations for such conduct, and it should therefore not be cited as such.

Finally, we do not agree with the Grievance Administrator that the panel gave excessive mitigating effect to respondent’s ankle injury. In fact, the record reveals that the panel had the same concerns as counsel for the Grievance Administrator regarding the remoteness of the injury to the neglect that had already occurred.