DISBARMENT
Phillip G. Bazzo, P25243, Lincoln Park, by the Attorney Discipline Board affirming Tri-County Hearing Panel #16 Order of Disbarment. Disbarment effective Feb. 24, 2021.
Based on the evidence presented by the parties at the hearings held in this matter, the hearing panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct as charged in a two-count formal complaint involving two separate, unrelated client matters. In the first matter, as referenced in count 1 of the formal complaint, the panel found that the respondent represented a client when the representation of that client was materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests in violation of MRPC 1.7(b), which did not satisfy the exceptions to MRPC 1.7(b)(1)-(2); entered into a business transaction with a client in violation of MRPC 1.8(a), which did not satisfy the exceptions of MRPC 1.8(a)(1)-(3); failed to promptly notify a client when funds to which the client had an interest were received in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1); failed to promptly pay or deliver any funds to which a client was entitled to receive in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to promptly render a full accounting regarding property to which a client was entitled in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to appropriately safeguard client funds in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); and 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).
In the second matter, as referenced in count 2 of the formal complaint, the panel found that the respondent represented a client when the representation of that client was materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests in violation of MRPC 1.7(b), which did not satisfy the exceptions to MRPC 1.7(b)(1)-(2); knowingly revealed a confidence or secret of a client without permission or other exception in violation of MRPC 1.6(b)(1); knowingly used a confidence or secret of a client to the disadvantage of the client without permission or other exception in violation of MRPC 1.6(b)(2); knowingly used a confidence or secret of a client to the advantage of the lawyer or a third person without permission or other exception in violation of MRPC 1.6(b)(3); failed to maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with his client when that client’s ability to make adequately considered decisions in connection with the representation may have been impaired in violation of MRPC 1.14(a); and attempted to seek the appointment of a guardian or take other protective action with respect to a client before properly assessing whether the client could adequately act in his own interest in violation of MRPC 1.14(b).
The respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(a) and(c) as charged in both counts of the formal complaint.
The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. The respondent filed a timely petition for review and a petition for a stay of the discipline imposed. The respondent’s petition for stay was denied by the board on Feb. 26, 2021. After conducting review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board affirmed the hearing panel’s order of disbarment on Sept. 28, 2021. On Oct. 19, 2021, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the board’s order pursuant to MCR 9.118(E), which was denied on Jan. 12, 2022.
On Feb. 9, 2022, the respondent filed a timely application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court pursuant to MCR 9.122(A). On May 31, 2022, the Court issued an order denying the respondent’s application for leave to appeal. On July 6, 2022, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order. On Sept. 6, 2022, the Court denied the respondent’s motion. Costs were assessed in the total amount of $3,830.50.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Eric Allan Buikema, P58379, Farmington Hills, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #53. Suspension, one year, effective Aug. 11, 2022.
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. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he was convicted on Dec. 3, 2021, by a nolo contendere plea of criminal sexual conduct, 4th degree, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 750.520E(1)(a) in a matter entitled People of the State of Michigan v Eric Allan Buikema, 6th Circuit Court Case No. 2019-272066-FH.
Based on the respondent’s conviction, 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) and MRPC 8.4(b).
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 one year. Costs were assessed in the amount of $909.71.
REPRIMAND
Jay B. Dorsey, P73975, Washington, D.C., by the Attorney Discipline Board. Reprimand effective Sept. 9, 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 of a public censure and one-year unsupervised period of probation with conditions entered by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on May 12, 2022, in the matter titled In re J.B. Dorsey III, Respondent, District of Columbia Court of Appeals Case No. 22BA171.
An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the board on June 27, 2022, ordering the parties to, within 21 days from service of the order, inform the board in writing (i) of any objection to the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan based on the grounds set forth in MCR 9.120(C)(1) and (ii) whether a hearing was requested. The 21-day period set forth in the board’s June 27, 2022, order expired without objection or request for hearing by either party.
On Aug. 18, 2022, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,508.36.
INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)
James M. Harris, P24939, Chicago, Illinois, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #13. Interim suspension effective Aug. 10, 2022.
The respondent failed to appear at the Aug. 2, 2022, 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 Aug. 10, 2022, and until further order of the panel or the board.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION
Stephen LaCommare, P52718, Howell, by the Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #1. Disbarment, effective Aug. 11, 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 during his representation of four separate clients in their separate legal matters and by failing to answer six separate requests for investigation.
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that the respondent, with respect to counts 1-4, failed to undertake preparation necessary under the circumstances in violation of MRPC 1.1(b); neglected legal matters 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 matters and failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation, including a failure to refund any advance payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); engaged in conduct 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).
With regard 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); engaged in conduct 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); engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct that violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MCR 9.104(4).
The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and pay restitution in the total amount of $7,750. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,755.16.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Nov. 16, 2021. Please see Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), issued Nov. 17, 2021.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION (WITH CONDITION)
Stephen LaCommare, P52718, Howell, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #6. Disbarment, effective Nov. 16, 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 six-count formal complaint, in his representation of four separate clients in their various legal matters; misused his IOLTA account; failed to timely answer one request for investigation; and completely failed to answer two additional requests for investigation.
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that respondent, with respect to counts 1-4, neglected legal matters in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); 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) (counts 1, 2, and 4); and 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) (count 3).
With regard to count 5, the panel found that the respondent commingled and misappropriated client funds in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) and MRPC 1.15(d); failed to safeguard client funds in an IOLTA in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); and misused his IOLTA by paying personal expenses from it in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) and (f).
With regard to count 6, 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 MCR 9.104(4).
Additionally, 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 two years effective Nov. 16, 2021, the date respondent’s interim suspension under MCR 9.115(H)(1) went into effect; that he pay restitution in the total amount of $4,250; and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. The grievance administrator filed a timely petition for review. After conducting review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board issued an order increasing discipline from a two-year suspension to disbarment and affirmed the order of restitution and the condition imposed by the hearing panel. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,359.95.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Nov. 16, 2021. Please see Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), issued Nov. 17, 2021.
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Isaiah Lipsey, P57361, Southfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #79. Suspension, 30 days, effective Aug. 24, 2022.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order Discipline 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 committed professional misconduct while using his IOLTA between July 2018 and 2020.
Based upon the respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent held funds other than client or third-party funds in his IOLTA in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); failed to hold property of a client in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); and deposited his own funds in his IOLTA in an amount more than reasonably necessary to pay financial service charges or fees in violation of MRPC 1.15(f). The panel also found the respondent in violation of MCR 9.104(1)-(3).
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 and that the respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,127.65.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Scott Alan Mund, P56731, Muskegon, effective June 7, 2022.
On June 7, 2022, the respondent pleaded no contest to gross indecency between male and female persons, a felony, in violation of MCL 750.338B in a matter titled People of the State of Michigan v Scott Alan Mund, 14th Circuit Court, Muskegon County, Case No. 2021-004920-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.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Richard A. Sabo Jr., P59076, Flint, by the Attorney Discipline Board Genesee County Hearing Panel #4. Reprimand effective Aug. 12, 2022.
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 when he negligently placed personal funds into his IOLTA while the IOLTA also contained client funds.
Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent held funds other than client or third-person funds related to a representation in an IOLTA in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) 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 $1,253.71.