DISBARMENT
Andrew Dag Babcock, P69502, Bridgman, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kent County Hearing Panel #4. Disbarment, effective Sept. 16, 2021.
The respondent was convicted by jury verdict of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a person under 13 years of age in violation of MCL 750.520b(2)(b) and one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct — relationship to victim in violation of MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(ii), felonies, in the matter titled People of the State of Michigan v. Andrew Dag Babcock, 2nd Circuit Case No. 2020003325-FC.
Based on his convictions, 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).
The hearing panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan, effective Sept. 16, 2021, the date of his felony convictions and his automatic interim suspension from the practice of law in Michigan pursuant to MCR 9.120(B)(1). Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,796.50.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Carl L. Collins III, P55982, Southfield, effective Nov. 16, 2022.
On Nov. 16, 2022, the respondent was convicted by jury verdict of five counts of making a false tax return in violation of 26 USC § 7206(1), a felony, in United States of America v. Carl L. Collins III, US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:19-cr-20685. Upon the respondent’s conviction, in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended.
Upon the filing of a 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 under MCR 9.115(J)
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
William Otis Culpepper, P23520, Detroit, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #18. Suspension, 30 days, effective Dec. 14, 2022.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of 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 to the factual allegations and plea of no contest that he engaged in professional misconduct during his representation of a client in a criminal matter as set forth in the administrator’s amended formal complaint.
Specifically, the respondent admitted that he entered into a retainer agreement with a mother to represent her son in his pending criminal matter. Although the retainer agreement specifically stated that a portion of the fee was non-refundable, it contained a provision that stated that in the event his representation was terminated, the respondent was only allowed to keep fees that were actually earned and costs that were actually paid. When the respondent received the entire requested fee, he failed to deposit the unearned portion into an IOLTA. Instead, he deposited the entire amount into his business operating account. Thereafter, the respondent failed to provide a requested invoice and refund of unearned fees to his client’s mother and, in response to a request for investigation filed by his client’s mother, the respondent provided a fee breakdown that was not kept contemporaneously and contained inaccurate dates of work performed.
Based upon the respondent’s admissions, plea, and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent 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 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 communicate the basis or rate of his fee before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation in violation of MRPC 1.5(b); failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); and failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation including surrendering property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of a fee that has not been earned in violation of MRPC 1.16(d). The panel also found that the respondent violated MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c).
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. 29, 2022, and that he pay restitution in the total amount of $10,000 within 90 days of the date of the order of discipline. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.
Prior to the Nov. 29, 2022, effective date, respondent filed a motion to modify the effective date of his suspension to Dec. 14, 2022. On Nov. 23, 2022, the panel entered an order granting respondent’s motion.
INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)
Kimberly Shea Grzic, P79927, Howell, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #3. Interim suspension, effective Nov. 8, 2022.
The respondent failed to appear at the Oct. 28, 2022, hearing and satisfactory proofs were entered into the record that she 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. 8, 2022, and until further order of the panel or the board.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Michael D. Langnas, P42357, Southfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #56. Suspension, 30 days, effective Dec. 12, 2022.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of 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 to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint in its entirety. The complaint specifically alleged that in July 2020, the Attorney Grievance Commission received notice that a check presented against the respondent’s IOLTA account was rejected due to insufficient funds, prompting an overdraft of the account. In response to a grievance administrator’s request for investigation and during the administrator’s subsequent investigation, the respondent admitted that he transferred “future payroll funds” into his IOLTA to secure funds from an IRS levy and possible garnishment, deposited earned fees into the same account, and used it to make two premium payments for his legal malpractice insurance.
Based upon the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent held funds other than client or third-person funds in an IOLTA in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); 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); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in violation of MRPC 8.4(b). The panel also found that the respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(2) and (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 effective Dec. 12, 2022, as agreed to by the parties and approved by the panel. Costs were assessed in the amount of $759.17.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION
Brian P. McMahon, P47477, St. Joseph, by the Attorney Discipline Board Berrien County Hearing Panel #1. Disbarment, effective Dec. 3, 2022.1
The grievance administrator filed a combined Notice of Filing of Judgments of Conviction and Formal Complaint against the respondent. The judgments of conviction showed that the respondent was convicted by nolo contendere plea of embezzlement by agent or trustee $50,000-$100,000 in violation of MCL 750.174(6), a felony, in the matter titled People of the State of Michigan v. Brian Patrick McMahon, Berrien County Circuit Court Case No. 2021-000864-FH and larceny by conversion more than $20,000, in violation of MCL 750.362(2)(A), a felony, in the matter titled State of Michigan v. Brian Patrick McMahon, Berrien County Circuit Court Case No. 2021-003358-FH. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended effective Feb. 28, 2022, the date of the respondent’s felony convictions. Based on the convictions, 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).
Additionally, based on the respondent’s default for failing to answer the formal complaint, the hearing panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct in his representation of two separate, unrelated clients in two separate, unrelated matters. Count 1 of the formal complaint pertained to the respondent’s representation of a client and her company in the sale of a liquor license and charged that he converted the sale proceeds for his own purposes and falsely claimed in his answer to a request for investigation that he properly safeguarded his client’s portion of the funds.
Count 2 of the formal complaint pertained to the respondent’s representation of a client and his construction company in pursuing a breach of contract action and charged that respondent failed to deposit an unearned retainer into his IOLTA; billed his client for additional fees that were not earned; stopped communicating with his client; abandoned his client’s matter, requiring the client to retain new counsel to continue the matter; failed to refund any of the retainer or additional fees he received; and failed to answer a request for investigation filed against him regarding the above referenced conduct.
Specifically, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (count 2); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client in violation of MRPC 1.3 (count 2); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of their matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (count 2); failed to promptly notify the client when funds or property in which the client had an interest was received in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1) (count 1) failed to promptly pay or deliver any funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) (counts 1-2); failed to render a full accounting regarding funds he was holding for the client in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) (counts 1-2); failed to hold property of clients in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) (count 1); failed to safeguard client funds in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) (counts 1-2); upon termination of representation, failed to refund an unearned fee in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (count 2); knowingly made a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(1) and MCR 9.104(6) (count 1); 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) (counts 1-2); and failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113 in violation of MCR 9.104(7) (count 2). The respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) (counts 1-2) and MRPC 8.4(c) (counts 1-2).
The hearing panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan and pay $5,000 in restitution. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,848.69.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Feb. 28, 2022. Please see Notice of Automatic Interim Suspension issued March 22, 2022.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Thomas E. Moorhead, P23231, Owosso, effective July 14, 2022.
On July 14, 2022, the respondent was convicted by guilty plea of check non sufficient funds $500 or more, a felony, in violation of MCR 750.1313C in a matter titled People of the State of Michigan v. Thomas Edward Moorhead, Ingham County Circuit Court Case No. 21-006004-VJCM-C30. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended on the date the court accepted 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.
INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)
Matthew D. Novello, P63269, Highland, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #58. Interim suspension, effective Dec. 8, 2022.
The respondent failed to appear at the Nov. 28, 2022, hearing and satisfactory proofs were entered into the record that he 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 Dec. 8, 2022, and until further order of the panel or the board.
VACATING INTERIM SUSPENSION AND REINSTATEMENT
Jennifer Michelle Paine, P72037, Novi, by Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #59. Reinstated, effective Nov. 22, 2022.
On Oct. 25, 2022, Tri-County Hearing Panel #59 issued an Order of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) [Failure to Appear] suspending the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan effective Nov. 1, 2022.1
On Nov. 22, 2022, the panel issued an order granting the respondent’s motion to set aside the Oct. 25, 2022, Order of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) [Failure to Appear]. The panel’s order reinstated respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan effective Nov. 22, 2022.
1. See Notice of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), issued Nov. 1, 2022.
INTERIM SUSPENSION
Jennifer Michelle Paine, P72037, Novi, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #59. Interim suspension, effective Dec. 13, 2022.
The respondent failed to comply with a required provision in a Nov. 22, 2022, order entered by Tri-County Hearing Panel #59 that set aside an earlier Order of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1). As a result, the hearing panel issued an order of interim suspension on Dec. 6, 2022, effective Dec. 13, 2022, and until further order of the panel or the board.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)1
David M. Parrott, P38424, Van Buren Township, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri- County Hearing Panel #10. Reprimand, effective Dec. 3, 2022.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand 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 no contest plea of operating while impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.6253-A, in People of the State of Michigan v. David Mark Parrott, 85th District Court Case No. 18-0849-SD.
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 was in violation of 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 parties’ stipulation, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $792.57.
1. The grievance administrator filed a motion to dismiss the formal complaint (22-66-GA) portion of the combined Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction and Formal Complaint filed on Aug. 26, 2022. The motion was granted by the panel in an order entered on Nov. 11, 2022.
SUSPENSION (WITH CONDITIONS)
Hussein N. Rahal, P79471, Dearborn, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #16. Suspension, 90 days, effective May 27, 2022.1
A show cause hearing was held in this matter on the grievance administrator’s motion to increase discipline and petition for an order to show cause why discipline should not be increased for the respondent’s failure to comply with Tri-County Hearing Panel #16’s Jan. 19, 2022, Order of Suspension with Conditions (by Consent). The hearing panel found that based on the respondent’s admissions, stipulations, testimony, and exhibit admitted, the respondent violated an order of discipline in violation of MCR 9.104(9). Specifically, the panel found that the respondent negligently failed to file a timely affidavit of compliance with the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Attorney Discipline Board in violation of MCR 9.119(C) and practiced law, had contact with clients or potential clients, appeared as an attorney before courts, and held himself out as an attorney while he was suspended from the practice of law in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1)(4).
The hearing panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days effective May 27, 2022, the date the respondent ceased practicing law after retaining competent disciplinary counsel. The panel further ordered that the respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,842.50.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Feb. 10, 2022. Please see Notice of [90-Day] Suspension with Conditions (by Consent) issued Feb. 11, 2022, in Grievance Administrator v Hussein N. Rahal, 21 53 GA.
REINSTATEMENT
On Nov. 28, 2022, the hearing panel issued an Order of Suspension with Conditions suspending the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 90 days, effective May 27, 2022. On Nov. 29, 2022, the respondent submitted an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) showing that he has fully complied with all requirements of the Order of Suspension with Conditions and will continue to comply with the conditions set forth in the order for a period of one year from the date on which he filed his affidavit of compliance. On Nov. 30, 2022, the board was advised that the grievance administrator has no objection to the affidavit and the board being otherwise advised;
NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Hussein Rahal, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective Nov. 30, 2022.