REPRIMAND

Donna M. Beasley-Gibson, P72542, Mount Vernon, Washington, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Reprimand effective December 22, 2021.

The grievance administrator filed a Notice of Filing of Reciprocal Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.120(C), that attached a certified copy of an order reprimanding the respondent, entered by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Washington on May 6, 2020, In re Donna Marie Gibson, Lawyer, Bar No. 33583, Case No. 20#00028.

An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued and served on the respondent on October 22, 2021. The 21-day period referenced in MCR 9.120(C)(2)(b) expired without objection by either party and the respondent was deemed to be in default. Pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(6), the Attorney Discipline Board imposed comparable discipline and ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.

DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

Scott E. Combs, P37554, Plymouth, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #7. Disbarment effective October 14, 2020.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct as charged in three counts of a four-count formal complaint filed against him by regularly misusing his IOLTA, and during his representation of two separate, unrelated clients.

Specifically, the panel found that the respondent took action on behalf of a client without authority to do so, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) (Counts 2-3); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (Counts 2-3); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b) (Counts 2-3); engaged in a conflict of interest as a result of representing a client, when doing so may have been materially limited by respondent’s own interest, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b)(1) and (2) (Counts 2-3); held funds other than client or third-party funds in an IOLTA, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3) (Counts 1-3); failed to promptly render to his client a full accounting of the settlement funds, upon his client’s requests for the same, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) (Count 3); failed to keep his personal funds separate from client funds and/or disputed funds and failed to promptly distribute, and in particular to himself, all portions of the funds held in the IOLTA which were not in dispute, in violation of MRPC 1.15(c) (Counts 1-3); failed to safeguard the funds of clients, and/or disputed funds, in connection with a representation by failing to separate them from his own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) (Counts 1-3); used an IOLTA as a personal and/or business checking account, and wrote checks and made electronic transfers directly from the IOLTA in payment of personal and/or business expenses, in violation of MRPC 1.15(c) and (d) (Counts 1-3); misappropriated his client’s funds, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3), (c), and (d) (Count 3); maintained on deposit in a client trust account his own funds in an amount more than reasonably necessary to pay financial institution charges or fees, or to obtain a waiver of service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f) (Counts 1-3); knowingly made a false statement of material fact to a tribunal and/or failed to correct a false statement of material fact made to the tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1) (Counts 2-3); and, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) (Counts 1-3). The respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) (Counts 1-3).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of three years and that he pay $19,725.10 in restitution to one of the clients.

The respondent timely filed a petition for review and requested an interim stay of 60 days to allow his new counsel sufficient time to prepare a complete petition for stay. The grievance administrator timely filed a crosspetition for review. On July 10, 2020, the Attorney Discipline Board entered an order granting, in part, the respondent’s request for an interim stay. The board’s order stayed the order of discipline on an interim basis and the respondent was given 14 days to supplement his request for a stay. After the respondent’s supplement was filed, the board issued an order denying in part, and granting in part, the respondent’s petition for stay of order of suspension and restitution, staying the panel’s decision regarding restitution only and denying the respondent’s motion for a stay of his threeyear suspension.

The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the stay, which was denied. On October 13, 2020, the board entered an order granting a stay of the suspension of the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan nunc pro tunc from October 8, 2020, to October 13, 2020, ordering that the interim stay of the order of suspension be dissolved, and ordering the respondent’s three-year suspension from the practice of law in Michigan to become effective October 14, 2020.

After proceedings conducted in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board issued an opinion and order on April 1, 2021, affirming the hearing panel’s findings of misconduct, modifying the order of restitution (restitution was reduced to $19,252.10), and increasing the discipline imposed from a threeyear suspension to disbarment. On April 29, 2021, the respondent filed a timely application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, pursuant to MCR 9.122. On August 3, 2021, the Court issued an order denying the respondent’s application for leave to appeal. On August 24, 2021, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 3, 2021 order. On December 1, 2021, the Court denied the respondent’s motion. Costs were assessed in the total amount of $11,934.87.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Richard J. Corriveau, P25901, Northville, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #27.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline 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 as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct as a result of his dual contemporaneous representation of the father in a domestic relations matter and the son in a juvenile delinquency matter.

Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent represented a client where the representation may have been materially limited by his responsibilities to another client, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b). In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $853.25.

REPRIMAND

Leila L. Hale, P79801, Henderson, Nevada, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Reprimand effective December 22, 2021.

The grievance administrator filed a notice of filing of reciprocal discipline pursuant to MCR 9.120(C), that attached a certified copy of an order reprimanding the respondent, entered by the state of Nevada on January 28, 2000, State Bar of Nevada v Leila Hale, Esq., Case Nos. OBC 17-0374; 17-0553; and a certified copy of a final judgment and order of reciprocal discipline entered by the state of Arizona on July 20, 2021, In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Leila L. Hale, Bar No. 03312, Case No. PDJ 2021-9041.

An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued and served on the respondent on October 22, 2021. The 21-day period referenced in MCR 9.120(C)(2)(b) expired without objection by either party and the respondent was deemed to be in default. Pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(6), the Attorney Discipline Board imposed comparable discipline and ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.

SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)

Cyril C. Hall, P29121, Dearborn, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #26. Suspension, 30 days, effective December 1, 2021.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline and Waiver, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admissions to the allegations that he committed professional misconduct as the result of his improper use of his IOLTA from June 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

Based upon the respondent’s admissions as set forth in the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent held funds other than client or third-person funds (i.e., earned fees) in an IOLTA, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); failed to hold property of his clients or third persons separately from his own, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); deposited his own funds into an IOLTA, (i.e., by keeping fees in the account after they became earned), in excess of an amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees or to obtain a waiver of service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f); and as a partner in a firm, failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that a nonlawyer’s conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 5.3(a).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days, effective December 1, 2021, pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,318.33.

REINSTATEMENT

On November 22, 2021, Tri-County Hearing Panel #26 entered an Order of Suspension (By Consent) that suspended the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan for 30 days, effective December 1, 2021. On December 23, 2021, the respondent, Cyril C. Hall, submitted an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A), stating that he has fully complied with all requirements of the panel’s order. On January 4, 2022, the board was advised that the grievance administrator had no objection to the affidavit; and the board being otherwise advised;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the respondent, Cyril C. Hall, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective January 4, 2022.

REINSTATEMENT

Nathaniel Herdt, P68144, Milan, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Reinstated, effective December 15, 2021.

The petitioner’s license to practice law in Michigan was suspended for 18 months effective July 1, 2019. On June 16, 2021, the petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to MCR 9.123 and MCR 9.124, which was assigned to Tri-County Hearing Panel #2. After a hearing on the petition, the panel concluded that the petitioner satisfactorily established his eligibility for reinstatement and on November 23, 2021, issued an Order of Eligibility for Reinstatement. On December 9, 2021, the board received written confirmation that the petitioner paid his bar dues in accordance with Rules 2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan.

The board issued an Order of Reinstatement reinstating petitioner to the practice of law in Michigan, effective December 15, 2021.

DISBARMENT (BY CONSENT)

Brian J. Kolodziej, P76330, St. Clair Shores, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #104. Disbarment, effective December 15, 2021.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Disbarment, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted by a plea of nolo contendere to two counts of willful neglect of duty of a public officer, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 750.478, in a matter titled People of the State of Michigan v Brian Joseph Kolodziej, 76th District Court Case No. 20-1309-FY.

Based on the respondent’s conviction, admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $944.05.

SUSPENSION

Diane L. Marion, P33403, Belleville, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #4. Suspension, one year, effective December 29, 2021.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that the respondent committed professional misconduct while employed as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, when she misrepresented information and facts to the court regarding a case.

Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that the respondent knowingly made a false statement of material fact to a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c), and MCR 9.104(1); and engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of one year. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,649.46.

DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

Douglas A. McKinney, P35430, Auburn Hills, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #51. Disbarment effective December 2, 2021.¹

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that the respondent committed professional misconduct as charged in a seven-count formal complaint filed against the respondent in his continued representation of clients, filing of pleadings, and his appearance in multiple courts after the suspension of his license to practice law in Michigan; knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal by failing to comply with a court order to pay an arrearage of child support and court fines; and failed to answer seven requests for investigation.

Based on the administrator’s argument, the exhibits, and the respondent’s default, the panel found that, with respect to Count 1, the respondent knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); engaged in conduct which was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); 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).

With regard to Counts 2-3, the hearing panel found that the respondent practiced law, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1); held himself out as an attorney, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(4); practiced law while not licensed to do so, in violation of MRPC 5.5(a); engaged in conduct which was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct which involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflected adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); 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).

With regard to Counts 4-5, the hearing panel found that the respondent engaged in the misconduct recited in Counts Two and Three above; that he had contact with clients, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(2); and that he appeared as an attorney before a court or judge, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(3).

As to Count 6, the hearing panel found that the respondent charged an illegal fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); accepted a new retainer after being suspended from the practice of law, in violation of MCR 9.119(D); practiced law, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1); had contact with clients, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(2); appeared as an attorney before a court or judge, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(3); held himself out as an attorney, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(4); practiced law while not licensed to do so, in violation of MRPC 5.5(a); engaged in conduct which was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct which involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflected adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); 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 7, the hearing panel found that the respondent knowingly failed to timely respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); failed to timely answer a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2); and engaged in conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4) and MRPC 8.4(a).

The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and pay restitution in the total amount of $500. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,011.67. 1. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since September 3, 2021. See Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), dated September 3, 2021.

REINSTATEMENT

On August 6, 2020, Tri-County Hearing Panel #69 entered an order of suspension and restitution with condition that suspended the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan for 90 days effective August 28, 2020. The respondent filed a timely petition for review and petition for stay, which resulted in an automatic stay of the hearing panel’s August 6, 2020, order in accordance with MCR 9.115(K). After review proceedings held in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board issued an order on April 27, 2021, that affirmed the hearing panel’s order of suspension and restitution with condition in its entirety and ordered additional restitution. On May 25, 2021, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which resulted in an automatic stay of the board’s order, pursuant to MCR 9.118(E). On August 24, 2021, the board issued an order denying the respondent’s motion for reconsideration. As a result, the board’s order of suspension and restitution with condition and ordering additional restitution became effective on September 22, 2021.

On December 29, 2021, the respondent, Gary D. Nitzkin, submitted an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) stating that he has fully complied with all requirements of the board’s order. No objection to the respondent’s affidavit was received from the grievance administrator within the seven days set forth in MCR 9.123(A); and the board being otherwise advised;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the respondent, Gary D. Nitzkin, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective January 6, 2022.

SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Amy Lynn Panek, P80870, Mount Pleasant, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #3. Suspension, three years, effective February 26, 2021.¹

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of a Three-Year Suspension with Conditions in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that she was convicted of delivering a controlled substance (methamphetamine), a felony, in violation of MCL 333.7401(2)(b)(i), in People of the State of Michigan v Amy Lynn Panek, 49th Circuit Court Case No. 20-009909-FH.

Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).

In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of three years and that she be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $864.11. 1. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since December 18, 2020. Please see Notice of Automatic Interim Suspension issued January 27, 2021.

SUSPENSION

Charles PT Phoenix, P61096, Naples, Florida, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri- County Hearing Panel #81. Suspension, two years, effective January 4, 2022.

The grievance administrator filed a notice of filing of reciprocal discipline pursuant to MCR 9.120(C) that attached a certified copy of an opinion and order suspending the respondent’s license to practice law in Florida for two years entered by the Supreme Court of Florida on January 28, 2021, effective 30 days after issuance, in a matter titled The Florida Bar v Charles Paul-Thomas Phoenix, SC17-585. Upon receipt of the respondent’s timely objection to the board’s Order Regarding Imposition of Reciprocal Discipline and request for a hearing, this matter was assigned to Tri-County Hearing Panel #81, pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(3), for disposition.

After considering the respondent’s objection and request for hearing along with the administrator’s response, the panel found that a hearing was not necessary because the respondent was afforded due process of law in the court of the original proceeding, and that the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan would not be clearly inappropriate. Therefore, the panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for two years, effective January 4, 2022. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,518.50.

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (WITH CONDITION)

Ronald G. Pierce, P77198, Hastings, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kent County Hearing Panel #4. Suspension, 180 days, effective December 2, 2021.¹

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that the respondent committed professional misconduct as charged in a five-count formal complaint filed against the respondent that alleged that he committed professional misconduct in his representation of four separate clients in their criminal defense matters; failed to timely answer two requests for investigation; and completely failed to answer another request for investigation.

Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that, with respect to Counts 1-4, the respondent neglected his clients, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matter and failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); and 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 MRPC 1.16(d).

With respect to Count 5, the panel found that the respondent knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A)-(B)(2), in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MRPC 8.1(a)(2); and engaged in conduct that violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4).

As charged in the entire complaint, the panel found that the respondent engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, in violation of 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).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 180 days, that he pay restitution in the total amount of $27,335, and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,048.87. 1. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since August 26, 2021. See Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), dated August 26, 2021.

DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

Christopher Allyn Sevick, P69506, Ann Arbor, by the Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #51. Disbarment effective January 7, 2022.¹

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that the respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged in a multi-count formal complaint in relation to his representation of clients for whom he had been placed in a fiduciary relationship and a position of trust by the Washtenaw County Probate Court.

Based on the administrator’s argument, the exhibits, and the respondent’s default, the panel found that the respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to him by the court, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (Count 1); failed to seek the lawful objectives of his clients through reasonably available means permitted by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) (Count 1); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients, in violation of MRPC 1.3 (Count 1); failed to promptly pay or deliver any funds that the client was entitled to receive, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) (Count 3); failed to hold property of a client in connection with a representation separate from his own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) (Count 3); failed to respond to a lawful demand for information, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (Counts 2 and 4); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) (Count 3); and failed to answer a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(B) (Counts 2 and 4). The panel also found that the respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) (Counts 1-4); MRPC 8.4(c) (Count 1); MCR 9.104(1) (Count 1); MCR 9.104(2) (Counts 1-4); MCR 9.104(3) (Counts 1-4); and, MCR 9.104(4) (Count 1).

The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and pay restitution in the total amount of $11,500. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,526.36. 1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since July 28, 2021. See Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), dated July 30, 2021.

SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)

Michael H. Schuitema, P72718, Petoskey, by the Attorney Discipline Board Emmet County Hearing Panel #3. Suspension, 30 days, effective December 13, 2021.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of 30-Day Suspension, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by a majority of the hearing panel. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted by guilty plea of failure to stop at the scene of a property damage accident, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.618, in a matter titled People of the City of Petoskey v Michael H. Schuitema, 90th District Court Case No. 20-0008-OT.

Based on the respondent’s conviction, admissions, and the parties’ amended stipulation, the panel majority found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5). In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel majority ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days. 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, US District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 3:19-cr-20451-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.

REINSTATEMENT

On April 10, 2020, Tri-County Hearing Panel #1 issued an Order of Suspension (By Consent), suspending the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 179 days, effective May 2, 2020. On December 13, 2021, the respondent, James E. Stamman, submitted an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A), showing that he has fully complied with all requirements of the Order of Suspension. On December 16, 2021, the board was advised the grievance administrator has no objection to the affidavit; and the Board being otherwise advised;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the respondent, James E. Stamman, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective December 16, 2021.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

John D. Tallman, P32312, Grand Rapids, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kent County Hearing Panel #1. Reprimand effective December 9, 2021.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline and Waiver, 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 through improper use of his IOLTA.

Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); deposited his own funds into an IOLTA in an amount more than reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f); and engaged in conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a).

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.