State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board

In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of David D. Black, P43367, ADB Case No. 22-27-RP

Petitioner

Notice is given that David D. Black, P43367, 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 David D. Black (P43367), ADB Case No. 22-27-RP.

Effective April 13, 2011, the petitioner pleaded guilty to attempt to evade and defeat his 2004 federal taxes. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the petitioner’s license to practice law in Michigan was suspended effective April 13, 2011, the date of his felony conviction.

Based on the petitioner’s conviction and the stipulation for the parties, the panel found that the petitioner committed professional misconduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States contrary to MCR 9.104(A)(5).

The panel ordered that the petitioner’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for four years, effective April 13, 2011, the date of his felony conviction.

The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the matter of the reinstatement to Tri-County Hearing Panel #102. A virtual hearing via Zoom videoconferencing is scheduled for Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2022. Any interested person may participate in the hearing and request to be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement. 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 person having information bearing on the petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:

Pamela I. Linville, Senior Associate Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
PNC Center
755 W. Big Beaver, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48084
(313) 961-6585
pilinville@agcmi.com

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 ordered has elapsed or five years have elapsed since the disbarment, whichever is applicable;
3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his suspension or disbarment;
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 vacating an order of reinstatement.

State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board

In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Mark Hermiz, P76378, ADB Case No. 22-28-RP

Petitioner

Notice is given that Mark Hermiz, P76378, has filed a petition for reinstatement in the Supreme Court of the state of Michigan and with the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking reinstatement as a member of the Bar of this state and restoration of his license to practice law.

In Grievance Administrator v Mark Hermiz, 17-85-GA (ADB 2017), a panel found, by stipulation of the parties, that the petitioner committed acts of professional misconduct in his representation of Relief Physical Therapy and Rehab to obtain payment of insurance claims for medical services provided by the company to accident injury victims. The petitioner failed to enter into a signed, written contingent fee agreement with ReliefPhysical Therapy and Rehab; did not maintain adequate communications with the client concerning the settlement amounts; failed to adequately advise the client of the receipt of settlement checks; failed to provide a written disbursement sheet setting forth the disbursement of funds following settlement; and failed to maintain adequate bookkeeping records concerning his IOLTA account and the amounts he was due from each individual settlement.

Based upon the petitioner’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the petitioner failed to obtain specific settlement authority from his client in each matter in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to explain each settlement to his client through its authorized representative in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to enter into a written contingent fee agreement in violation of MRPC 1.S(c); failed to issue a disbursement sheet for each settlement in violation of MRPC 1.S(c); failed to notify his client promptly when settlement checks were received in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1); failed to hold client funds separate from his own funds in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); engaged in conduct that 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 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). Based on the parties’ stipulation, the panel ordered the petitioner be suspended for 179 days effective Oct. 11, 2017, and ordered him to comply with the conditions contained in the parties’ stipulation.

In Grievance Administrator v Mark Hermiz, 20-46-GA (ADB 2020), the petitioner entered into a stipulation containing his admissions to the allegations that he committed actsof professional misconduct in relation to his representation of a client and the client’s company after being retained to negotiate or file civil actions to collect unpaid medical bills owed to the client and the client’s company.

Based upon the petitioner’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the petitioner failed to obtain specific settlement authority from his client in each matter in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain each settlement to his client through its authorized representative in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); failed to enter into a written contingent fee agreement in violation of MRPC 1.5(c); failed to issue a disbursement sheet for each settlement in violation of MRPC 1.5(c); failed to notify his client promptly when settlement checks were received in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1); and failed to hold client funds separate from his own funds in violation of MRPC 1.15(d). The petitioner was also found to have violated MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(2), (3), and (4). Based on the finding of misconduct and the stipulation of the parties, the panel suspended the petitioner for 18 months effective April 8, 2020, and ordered compliance with the conditions contained in the parties’ stipulation.

A hearing is scheduled for Thursday, Aug. 18, commencing at 9:30 a.m. This matter has been scheduled as a virtual proceeding via Zoom videoconferencing.

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 such hearing and be heard in support of or in opposition to said petition for reinstatement. Any person having information bearing on the petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:

Nathan C. Pitluk, Associate Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
755 W. Big Beaver, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48084
(313) 961-6585
ncpitluk@agcmi.com

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 Peter T. Howe, P57973, ADB Case No. 22-23-RP

Petitioner

Notice is given that Peter T. Howe, P57973, has filed a petition for reinstatement in the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan and with the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking reinstatement as a member of the Bar of this state, and restoration of his license to practice law.

On March 9, 2011, the petitioner was convicted in the Oakland County Circuit Court of larceny by conversion $1,000 to $20,000, a felony, contrary to MCL 750.362. The petitioner’s conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(5). Based on the petitioner’s felony conviction, the panel ordered that the petitioner’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for two and a half years retroactive to March 9, 2011, the date of his conviction. On Nov. 21, 2011, the grievance administrator filed a petition for review, seeking an increase in discipline. Prior to the scheduled review hearing before the board, the grievance administrator and the petitioner stipulated that the matter should be remanded to the hearing panel for further consideration in conjunction with a newly filed reciprocal discipline proceeding based upon an order of discipline entered in the state of Illinois (ADB Case No. 12-22-RD). On April 17, 2012, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), the parties filed a stipulation for consent order of discipline which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based on the agreement of the parties, thehearing panel ordered that petitioner be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan effective March 9, 2011, the date of his felony conviction.

A Zoom hearing is scheduled for Friday, July 29, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. with the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board.

Any interested person may appear at such hearing and be heard in support of or in opposition to said petition for reinstatement. Any person having information bearing on the petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:

Michael K. Mazur, Associate Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
PNC Center
755 W. Big Beaver, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48226
(313) 961-6585

Requirements of the Petitioner

Pursuant to MCR 9.123(B), the petitioner is required to establish the following by clear and convincing evidence:

1. He desires in good faith to be restored to the privilege of practicing law in Michigan;
2. The term of the suspension ordered has elapsed or five years have elapsed since his disbarment or resignation;
3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his suspension or disbarment;
4. He has complied fully with 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. Taking into account all of the attorney’s past conduct, including the nature of the misconduct that led to the revocation or suspension, he nevertheless 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 suspended for three years or more, he has been recertified by the Board of Law Examiners; and
9. He has reimbursed the client security fund of the State Bar of Michigan or has agreed to an arrangement satisfactory to the fund to reimburse the fund for any money paid from the fund as a result of his conduct.