SUSPENSION
L. David Bush, P51870, Berkley, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #66. Suspension, two years effective July 14, 2022.1
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of clients in two separate medical malpractice actions (counts 1 and 2) and appeared for closing arguments in In re Bourbeau Minors, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 2015-832568-NA, at a time when his license to practice law was suspended (count 3). The respondent was also alleged to have failed to answer or respond in any way to four separate requests for investigation (count 4).
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that as to count 1, the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); 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); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon the termination of a representation in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a third person in violation of MRPC 4.1; and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of MRPC 5.5(a).
As to count 2, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); 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); and failedto take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon the termination of a representation in violation of MRPC 1.16(d).
As to count 3, the panel found that the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of MRPC 5.5(a); failed to notify clients and courts of his suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(A) and (B); failed to file a proof of compliance for his suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(C); and failed to cease practicing law after the effective date of his suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1)-(4).
As to count 4, the panel found that the respondent failed to answer requests for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7), 9.113(A), and 9.113(B)(2); and knowingly failed to respond to a disciplinary authority’s request for information in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2).
The panel also found violations of MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a)-(c) as charged in each count of the complaint.
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of two years. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,920.97.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since February 12, 2020, as a result of his failure to pay bar dues to the State Bar of Michigan. The respondent’s license to practice law was also suspended for a period of one year in Grievance Administrator v L. David Bush, 20-40-GA, effective November 18, 2020.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Scott A. Chappelle, P43635, East Lansing, effective April 25, 2022.
On April 25, 2022, the respondent pleaded guilty to tax evasion in violation of 26 USC § 7201, a felony, in the matter titled United States of America v Scott Alan Chappelle, United States District Court — Western District of Michigan, Case No. 1:20-CR-0079-JMB. The respondent’s plea was accepted by the court the same day. 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 (WITH CONDITIONS)
Christopher S. Easthope, P53097, Saline, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Reinstated effective Aug. 4, 2022. The petitioner’s license to practice law in Michigan was suspended for 180 days effective Oct. 16, 2021. On March 3, 2022, petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to MCR 9.123 and MCR 9.124, which was assigned to Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #3. After a hearing on the petition, the panel concluded that the petitioner satisfactorily established his eligibility for reinstatement and on July 28, 2022, issued an Order of Eligibility for Reinstatement with Conditions that indicated that an order of reinstatement would be issued upon receipt of written verification that the petitioner’s bar dues were paid. On Aug. 2, 2022, the board received written confirmation that the petitioner paid his bar dues inaccordance with rules 2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules concerning the State Bar of Michigan.
The board issued an Order of Reinstatement with Conditions reinstating the petitioner to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Aug. 4, 2022.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Derrick N. Okonmah, P68221, Bloomfield Hills, effective June 21, 2022.
On June 21, 2022, the respondent pleaded guilty to operating while intoxicated, 3rd offense, a felony, in violation of MCL 257.6256D; and operating while license suspended, revoked, or denied second or subsequent offense, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.904(1)(c), in the matter titled People of the State of Michigan v Derrick Nnabuife Okonmah, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 2021-276708-FH. The respondent’s plea was accepted by the court the same day. 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.
DISBARMENT (BY CONSENT)
Eric J. Smith, P46186, Macomb, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #103. Disbarment effective June 15, 2022.1
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Revised Stipulation for Consent Order of Disbarment which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearingpanel. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted of obstruction of justice, a felony, in violation of 18 § USC 1512(b)(1), in United States of America v Eric J. Smith, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan Case No. 2:20-cr-20413-LVP. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended effective Feb. 16, 2022, the date of his felony conviction.
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 $1,051.75.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Feb. 16, 2022. Please see Notice of Automatic Interim Suspension issued March 11, 2022.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION
John H. Underhill, P42326, Adrian, by the Attorney Discipline Board Livingston County Hearing Panel #1. Disbarment effective July 27, 2022.1
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, in his representation of three separate clients in their various legal matters; during dealings with a construction contractor; and by failing to respond to a subpoena from the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (counts 1 and 3); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of MRPC 1.3 (counts 1 and 3); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (counts 1 and 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) (count 1); entered into an agreement for, charged, or collected an illegal fee or clearly excessive fee in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) (count 3); failed to maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with a client when the client’s ability to make decisions was impaired in violation of MRPC 1.14(a) (count 5); failed to take reasonable steps upon terminating a representation to refund an unearned fee and to protect the client’s interest in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (counts 1 and 3); knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of the tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) (count 4); failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (count 2); engaged in conduct that 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) (counts 1, 4, and 5); engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law of a state or of the United States in violation of MCR 9.104(5) (counts 1 and 4); committed forgery in violation of MCL 750.248(1) (count 4); and committed larceny in violation of MCL 750.356(1)(a) (count 4). The respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c).
The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred effective July 27, 2022, and pay restitution in the total amount of $15,678. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,140.06.
1. The respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was previously suspended on an interim basis effective October 28, 2021. The interim suspension was vacated and the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was reinstated effective March 1, 2022. See Notice Vacating Interim Suspension and Notice of Reinstatement, issued March 4, 2022.
REPRIMAND (WITH CONDITIONS)
Paul G. Valentino, P34239, Bloomfield Hills, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #55. Reprimand effective June 10, 2022.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that while representing an individual in a first-party automobile accident claim, the respondent failed to have an executed contingent fee agreement in writing and provided to the client; charged and attempted to collect an illegal fee; and represented a client where the representation was materially limited by the respondent’s responsibilities to another client.
The panel specifically found that the respondent entered into an agreement for, charged, or collected an illegal fee in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); failed to have an executed contingent fee agreement in writing and provided to the client in violation of MRPC 1.5(c) and MCR 8.121(F); and represented a client where the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interest, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b).
The panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $3,138.15.
SUSPENSION
Kelly D. Watson, P58080, Redford, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hear Hearing Panel #11. Suspension, 180 days effective July 6, 2022.
The respondent was convicted of operating while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.6251(B), in People of the City of Livonia v Kelly David Watson, 16th District Court Case No. 20L01579OD. Based on the respondent’s conviction, the panel found that 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).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,815.96.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Sean C. Ziadeh, P63872, Farmington, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #51. Reprimand effective June 15, 2022.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline 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 guilty plea of operating while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.6251-A in People of the State of Michigan v Sean Christopher Ziadeh, 47th District Court Case No. 20H72828SD.
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 reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.