AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION

Amanda Ann-Carmen Andrews, P75823, Port Clinton, Ohio, effective Sept. 6, 2022.

On Sept. 6, 2022, the respondent was convicted by guilty verdict of three separate felonies: Menacing by stalking, a felony, in violation of ORC 2903.11; nonsupport of dependents, a felony, in violation of ORC 2912.21(A)(2); and nonsupport of dependents, a felony, in violation of ORC 2912.21(A)(2) in a matter titled State of Ohio v. Amanda Ann-Carmen Andrews, Common Pleas Court of Ottawa County, Ohio, Case No. 2021-CR-I-243A. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended on the date of her felony convictions.

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 AND RESTITUTION

Scott E. Combs, P37554, Plymouth, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #14. Disbarment effective Sept. 29, 2021.¹

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in a wrongful discharge from employment claim.

The panel specifically found that the respondent failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his matter and comply properly with reasonable requests for information including, but not limited to, notifying his client promptly as to the status of settlement proceeds in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to his client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); after having modified his fee agreement to accept as his attorney fee for the employment matter

the amount his client decided was fair, the respondent charged and/or collected a clearly excessive fee in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); after having modified his fee agreement to accept as his attorney fee for the employment matter the amount his client decided was fair and upon keeping the entire $3,600 settlement check for himself, the respondent failed to communicate the basis or rate of his fee to his client in violation of MRPC 1.5(b); failed to promptly deliver funds that his client was entitled to receive in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to promptly render a full accounting to his client of the funds in his possession in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); when two or more persons, one of whom was the respondent and the other of whom was his client, claimed an interest in all or part of the June 29, 2017, settlement check in the amount of $3,600, the respondent failed to keep it separate in trust until the dispute was resolved in violation of MRPC 1.15(c); failed to safeguard and hold property (funds) of a client in connection with the representation separate from the lawyer’s own property in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); and engaged in conduct that involved deceit or misrepresentation where such conduct reflected adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in violation of MRPC 8.4(b). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3); and MRPC 8.4(c).

The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and pay restitution in the total amount of $3,100.

The respondent filed a timely petition for review. After proceedings conducted in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board issued an order on March 11, 2022, affirming in part and reversing in part the hearing panel’s findings of misconduct² and affirming the order of disbarment and restitution. On April 8, 2022, the respondent filed a timely application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court pursuant to MCR 9.122. On Sept. 27, 2022, the Court issued an order denying the respondent’s application for leave to appeal. Costs were assessed in the total amount of $3,616.84.

1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Oct. 14, 2020. Please see Notice of Suspension and Restitution issued Dec. 8, 2021, in Grievance Administrator v Scott E. Combs, Case No. 15 154 GA.

2. The board’s order reversed the panel’s finding that respondent violated MRPC 1.5(a) and (b).

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)

Phillip D. Comorski, P46413, Detroit, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #9. Suspension, 90 days, effective Oct. 13, 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 admissions that he committed professional misconduct in his representation of a client after he was retained and paid $15,000 to file a motion for relief from judgment and any other available post-conviction relief, including a federal habeas petition, on his client’s behalf; that he failed to timely file the motion for relief from judgment on his client’s behalf and eventually stopped communicating with his client or updating him on the status of his case; and failed to advise him of the final outcome of his matter. The client utilized the prison law library to check the status of his case and discovered that his federal habeas petition had been denied and that the respondent had filed an appeal on his behalf without his approval.

Based upon the respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent failed to competently represent his client in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); failed to seek the lawful objectives of the client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep the client informed of the status of the 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 engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation where such conduct reflected adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness in violation of MRPC 8.4(b). The panel also found that the respondent violated 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 90 days and that he pay restitution in the total amount of $7,000. Costs were assessed in the amount of $926.63.

SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)

David R. Fantera, P40305, Brighton, by the Attorney Discipline Board Genesee County Hearing Panel #1. Suspension, 30 days, effective Nov. 30, 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 admissions that he committed professional misconduct by improperly using his IOLTA as a business account into which he deposited and maintained earned funds and by doing so, he effectively shielded those funds from federal and state tax authorities and/or other creditors to whom he owed payment.

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-person funds in an IOLTA in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to hold property of his clients or third persons separate from his own in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); and 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). The panel also found that the respondent violated MCR 9.104(2) and MRPC 8.4(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 Nov. 30, 2022, as agreed to by the parties. Costs were assessed in the amount of $800.66.

DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

James M. Harris, P24939, Chicago, Illinois, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #13. Disbarment, effective Oct. 26, 2022.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found by default that the respondent committed professional misconduct as charged in a two-count formal complaint. As alleged in Count 1, the panel found that the respondent had been unauthorized to practice law before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) since 1990, yet knowingly and wrongfully failed to disclose that fact to his client when he was engaged to apply for a patent at the USPTO. After the USPTO rejected the patent application, the respondent’s client demanded that the respondent return the fee paid to him. The respondent refused; instead, he refiled the patent application and listed his client as the filing party in pro per. The respondent’s client never procured the patent or received a refund from respondent. As alleged in Count 2, the panel found that the respondent failed to answer a grievance administrator’s request for investigation.

Based on the respondent’s default, the panel found that as to Count 1, the respondent handled a legal matter the lawyer was not competent to handle in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); neglected a client’s legal matter 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 the status of a matter 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); failed to give candid advice to a client in violation of MRPC 2.1; engaged in the unauthorized practice of law before the USPTO in violation of MRPC 5.5(a); created an unjustified expectation about the results the lawyer can achieve in violation of MRPC 7.1(b); and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law in violation of MRPC 8.4(b). As to Count 2, the panel found that the respondent failed to knowingly answer a request for investigation or demand for information 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).

The respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(c) as charged in both counts of the formal complaint.

The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and pay restitution in the total amount of $9,695. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,727.81.

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION

Samuel P. Henkel, P70586, Grand Rapids, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kent County Hearing Panel #1. Suspension, 270 days, effective Oct. 1, 2022.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct in his representation of a client in a custody and parenting time matter. The panel found that once the respondent received the advance retainer fee, he ceased communication with his client despite his client’s multiple attempts to communicate with him regarding the status of his matter. It was additionally found that the respondent made false representations in his answer to the request for investigation and follow-up communications with the Attorney Grievance Commission and failed to refund unearned fees. Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of MRPC 1.3; 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); upon termination of representation, failed to refund any advanced payment of fee that had not been earned in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); knowingly made a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(1); failed to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in a disciplinary matter in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); engaged in conduct that involved 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); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); 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 270 days and that he pay restitution in the total amount of $3,000. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,403.09.

DISBARMENT (BY CONSENT)

Alexandra Ichim, P79557, Waterford, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #68. Disbarment, effective Oct. 8, 2022.¹

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Disbarment 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 by guilty plea of one count of forgery, a felony, in violation of MCL 750.248, in People of the State of Michigan v. Alexandra Ichim, 7th Circuit Court Case No. 22-049158-FH. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended effective April 25, 2022, the date of her felony conviction.

Based on the respondent’s conviction, admissions, and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when she 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 engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law in violation of MRPC 8.4(b).

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 $790.64.

1. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since April 25, 2022. Please see Notice of Automatic Interim Suspension issued June 3, 2022.

REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

James A. Murray III, P85490, Southfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #52. Reprimand, effective Oct. 8, 2022.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Revised Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand 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 he was convicted by guilty plea of impaired driving, second offense, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.6256B, in People v. James Arthur Murray, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 2280129-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); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and violated the standards or rules of professional responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4).

In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $759.41.

INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)

Jennifer Michelle Paine, P72037, Novi, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #59. Interim suspension, effective Nov. 1, 2022.

The respondent failed to appear at a Oct. 25, 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 Nov. 1, 2022, and until further order of the panel or the board.

SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION¹

Andrew J. Paluda, P42890, Royal Oak, effective June 10, 2022.

On June 10, 2022, the respondent pleaded no contest to Operating While Intoxicated, Third Offense, in violation of MCL 257.6256(D), a felony, in the matter titled People v. Andrew J. Paluda, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 21-278749- 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.

1. A first amended notice was issued to correct the referenced offense respondent was convicted of. A second amended notice was issued to remove non-public information.