SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS
Russell D. Brown, P60583, Plymouth, by the Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #5. Suspension, one year, effective November 20, 2021.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that the respondent committed professional misconduct as charged in a four-count formal complaint. Specifically with regard to Counts 1 and 3, the panel found that the respondent neglected two client matters; failed to keep the clients informed as to the status of their matters; did not provide either client with any invoices or any explanation as to how the funds they paid respondent were earned; nor did he return any of the unearned portion of the funds each client paid. With regard to Count 2, the panel found that the respondent failed to timely respond to a request for investigation filed against him by the client referenced in count one of the formal complaint. With regard to Count 4, the panel found that the respondent failed to deposit into his IOLTA account a $10,000 advance fee paid to him by the client referenced in count three of the formal complaint.
Based on the respondent’s default, the panel found that as to Counts 1 and 3, the respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of his clients through reasonably available means permitted by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); acted without reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [Count 1 only]; failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b) [Count 1 only]; failed to take reasonable steps to protect his clients’ interests upon termination of representation, including a failure to refund any advance payment of fees that had not been earned, in violation of MPRC 1.16(d); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
As to Count 2, the panel found that the respondent failed to timely answer a request for investigation and other inquiries made by the Attorney Grievance Commission, in violation of MCR 9.104(7), MCR 9.113(A), and MCR 9.113(B)(2); and engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1).
As to Count 4, the panel found that the respondent commingled and misappropriated client funds, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) and MRPC 1.15(d); and failed to safeguard client funds in an IOLTA, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of one year, that he pay restitution in the total amount of $15,000, and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,146.45.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION
David S. Feinberg, P42854, Lansing, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #7. Disbarment, effective November 30, 2021.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that the respondent committed professional misconduct as charged in a six-count formal complaint.
In Count 1, the panel found that the respondent negotiated a plea agreement in a criminal matter but failed to inform the client of the date and time of sentencing.
When the respondent and the client failed to attend the sentencing hearing, the client’s bond was revoked, a warrant was issued, and he was arrested and incarcerated for several days.
In Count 2, the panel found that the respondent approached an adverse witness after an ALJ expungement hearing in an aggressive manner and was verbally insulting and harassing to this person regarding the witness’s testimony during the hearing.
In Count 3, the panel found that the respondent refused and/or failed to meet with a client and return messages from a client that he was representing in a civil matter.
The client’s case was subsequently dismissed by summary judgment after the respondent failed to respond to the opposing counsel’s motion for summary judgment and to appear for the hearing on the motion.
In Count 4, the panel found that the respondent failed to appear on behalf of a client at a criminal pretrial hearing because he had a conflict in another court and did not request an adjournment. After a show cause hearing, the respondent was held in contempt of court and fined for his failure to appear.
In Count 5, the panel found that the respondent failed to appear on behalf of a client for a criminal final pretrial conference that had already been adjourned at his request on two prior occasions. The client appeared and was appointed new counsel by the court, and the respondent was ordered to return any unused retainer fees. The court then reported the respondent’s conduct to the Attorney Grievance Commission and when the respondent was subsequently contacted by the commission, he failed to produce requested documents.
In Count 6, the panel found that the respondent failed to appear on behalf of a client at a criminal arraignment hearing. The respondent also failed to timely file an appearance on behalf of the client, so he did not receive notice of the client’s probable cause hearing. The respondent and the client failed to attend the probable cause hearing. As a result, the client’s bond was revoked, a warrant was issued, and she spent the night in jail.
The panel specifically found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (Counts 1 and 3-6); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 (Counts 1 and 3-6); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of his matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (Counts 1 and 3-6); failed to treat all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect, in violation of MRPC 6.5(a) (Count 2); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (Counts 5-6); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) (Counts 1-6); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MRPC 9.104(1) (Counts 1-6); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MRPC 9.104(2) (Counts 1-6); engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (Counts 1-6); and failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113 (Count 6).
The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and that pay restitution in the total amount of $11,800. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,301.70.
REPRIMAND BY CONSENT AFTER REMAND
Lisa Jeanne Peterson, P71365, Norman, Oklahoma, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #1. Reprimand, Effective November 30, 2021.
The grievance administrator filed Formal Complaint 20-51-GA alleging that the respondent committed professional misconduct when she improperly held earned funds in her IOLTA and failed to respond to a demand for information from a disciplinary authority. In response, the respondent filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) asserting that the administrator’s formal complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On December 4, 2020, Tri-County Hearing Panel #1 granted the respondent’s motion for summary disposition and dismissed the formal complaint in its entirety.
The grievance administrator petitioned for review and the Attorney Discipline Board conducted review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118. On June 24, 2021, the board issued an order that vacated the hearing panel’s December 4, 2020, order and remanded this matter to the hearing panel for hearing on the charges in the formal complaint.
Thereafter, the respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand, pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), that was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon the respondent’s admissions, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when she left funds in her IOLTA for a period longer than permitted by the rules.
Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent deposited funds into her IOLTA in an amount in excess of the amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees or to obtain a waiver of services, charges, or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f). Also in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, all remaining allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint were dismissed.
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Jay A. Schwartz, P45268, Farmington Hills, effective November 18, 2021.
On November 18, 2021, the respondent was convicted of three felonies, conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 USC § 371, and two counts of bribery involving federal programs, in violation of
18 USC § 666(a)(2), in the matter titled United States v Jay A. Schwartz, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 3:19-cr20451-RHC-EAS-1. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended on the date of his felony conviction.
Upon the filing of a certified judgment of conviction, this matter will be assigned to a hearing panel for further proceedings. The interim suspension will remain in effect until the effective date of an order filed by a hearing panel.
INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)
Stephen LaCommare, P52718, Howell, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #6. Interim suspension effective November 16, 2021.
The respondent failed to appear at the November 1, 2021, hearing and satisfactory proofs were entered into the record that the respondent possessed actual notice of the proceedings. As a result, the hearing panel issued an order of suspension, in accordance with MCR 9.115(H)(1), effective November 16, 2021, and until further order of the panel or the board.