State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board
In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Lyle Dickson, P55424, ADB Case No. 22-64-RP
Petitioner
Notice is given that Lyle Dickson (P55424) has filed a petition in 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 Reinstatement Petition of Lyle Dickson (P55424), ADB Case No. 22-64-RP.
On May 4, 2017, Tri-County Hearing Panel #57 found that the petitioner committed professional misconduct by his conduct in reaction to the dismissal of his JAG officer application 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 in violation of MCR 9.104(3). The hearing panel imposed a reprimand.
The petitioner appealed to the Attorney Discipline Board. The Attorney Discipline Board found that the respondent personally harassed for a period of more than five years any and all individuals involved in the decision to deny his JAG application, and that a reprimand was insufficient discipline to impose in light of the misconduct committed and the aggravating factors that were present. As a result, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered a suspension of the petitioner’s license to practice law in Michigan for 180 days, effective Oct. 18, 2017. The petitioner filed an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court on Oct. 17, 2017. On Jan. 3, 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order denying the Application for Leave to Appeal.
On Feb. 21, 2021, Tri-County Hearing Panel #13 found that the petitioner committed professional misconduct when he engaged in a pattern of abusing the legal process and injured a party in that process by issuing subpoenas while not an attorney of record in a matter and failing to serve a copy of the subpoenas on opposing counsel on the date of issuance; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the Michigan Court Rules in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); engaged in conduct involving 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 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 in violation of MCR 9.104(3). The hearing panel ordered a suspension of the petitioner’s license to practice law in Michigan for 180 days, effective March 18, 2021.
The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the reinstatement petition to Tri-County Hearing Panel #15. A virtual hearing via Zoom video conferencing is scheduled for Monday, Nov. 21, 2022, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
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:
Cora L. Morgan, Senior Associate Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
755 W. Big Beaver, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48084
(313) 961-6585
clmorgan@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 revocation of his license has elapsed;
3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his 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, 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 David Chipman Venie, P68087, ADB Case No. 22-62-RP
Petitioner
Notice is given that David Chapman Venie (P68087), has filed a petition in 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 Chipman Venie (P68087), ADB Case No. 22-62-RP.
Effective Aug. 18, 2017, the petitioner was disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan. In a reciprocal discipline proceeding under MCR 9.120(C), the grievance administrator filed a certified copy of an order permanently disbarring the petitioner from the practice of law, effective immediately, entered by the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico on Jan. 18, 2017, in In the Matter of D. Chipman Venie, Case No. S-1-SC-3675.
The petitioner was permanently disbarred from the practice of law in New Mexico for conduct that occurred in connection with representation of three clients. In one matter, the petitioner counseled his client, L.A., to bribe witnesses and offered to deliver the bribery payment to the witnesses. He unnecessarily revealed client confidences in a fee dispute with L.A. and he made material misrepresentations to tribunals and the disciplinary authority. With respect to the second client, R.C., the petitioner converted money that belonged to R.C.’s parents and was provided solely for the purpose of posting R.C.’s bond. The petitioner filed a lien against a third client’s mother to secure a fee owed by the client.
An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was served on the petitioner on May 11, 2017. The 21-day period referenced in MCR 9.120(C)(2)(b) expired without objection by either party and the petitioner was deemed to be in default. Based on that default, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the petitioner be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan, effective Aug. 18, 2017.
The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the reinstatement petition to Tri-County Hearing Panel #6. A virtual hearing via Zoom is scheduled for Nov. 18, 2022, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
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 the virtual hearing and request to be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement.
Any person having information bearing on the petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:
Sarah C. Lindsey, General Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
755 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48084
(313) 961-6585
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 revocation of his license has elapsed;
3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his 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.