REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
Yvette M. Barrett, P58142, Detroit, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #12. Reprimand, effective March 31, 2023.
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 and no contest plea as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during her representation of a client in various post verdict proceedings after the client was found guilty of Criminal Sexual Conduct — First Degree.
Based on the respondent’s admissions, no contest 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 her client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); charged or collected a clearly excessive fee in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); 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); failed to refund an unearned fee paid in advance in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and 8.4(c); and engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3). In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and pay $12,500 in restitution. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,495.43.
DISBARMENT (BY CONSENT)
Jeffrey S. Freeman, P46712, West Bloomfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #51. Disbarment, effective March 29, 2023.
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 no contest plea to the factual statements and misconduct allegations set forth in the three-count formal complaint in its entirety. Specifically, the respondent pleaded no contest to committing professional misconduct while assisting a client with a tax investigation being conducted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by converting approximately $6.5 million from his client and making false representations to his client about the status of the IRS investigation and amounts he supposedly paid to the IRS on his client’s behalf.
Based on the respondent’s no contest plea and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that as to count one of the formal complaint, the respondent charged or collected a clearly excessive fee in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); failed to promptly pay or deliver funds to which a client is entitled in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to hold property (funds) of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); engaged in conduct involving 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 exposes the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, and/or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4).
As to count two of the formal complaint, the panel found that the respondent 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 promptly render a full accounting of all funds upon the client’s request in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); charged or collected a clearly excessive fee in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests, such as surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and/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); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4).
As to count three of the formal complaint, the panel found that the respondent 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); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of 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 exposes the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4); and engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States 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 effective March 29, 2023.1 Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,347.76.
1. Restitution was not included in the parties’ stipulation, and thereafter the hearing panel’s order because a financial settlement was reached in an underlying civil suit filed against the respondent in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the satisfaction of the respondent’s former client, her counsel, the respondent, and his counsel in the civil action.
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Elana H. Gloetzner, P62997, Novi, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #72. Reprimand, effective March 29, 2023.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed an Amended 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. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admissions that she was convicted on July 13, 2017, by no contest plea of Disorderly Person/Drunk/Intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/ PACC Code 750.1671E in a matter titled People v. Elana Hope Gloetzner, 52 1 Judicial District Court, Case No. 17 000120 SM and on June 7, 2019, by no contest plea of Operating While Intoxicated/Impaired — Second Offense in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257.625B in a matter tilted People v. Elana Hope Gloetzner, 35th District Court, Case No. 18N838. The respondent also admitted that she did not give notice of either conviction to the grievance administrator and the Attorney Discipline Board as set forth in the combined Notice of Filing of Judgments of Conviction and Formal Complaint filed by the grievance administrator.
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). The panel also found that the respondent failed notify the grievance administrator and Attorney Discipline Board of her convictions in violation of MCR 9.120(A)(1).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $962.62.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION (WITH CONDITIONS)
Kimberly Shea Grzic, P79927, Howell, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #3. Disbarment, effective April 4, 2023.1
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found by default that the respondent committed professional misconduct in her handling of five different legal matters and as charged in a six-count formal complaint. The legal matters included a driver’s license restoration matter, two child custody matters, a contract and fee dispute matter, and a post-divorce judgment matter. The respondent also failed to timely respond to a request for investigation and failed to answer four others.
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to her in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (counts 1-5); failed to seek the lawful objectives of the client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) (counts 1-5); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 (counts 1-5); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and to comply with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (counts 1-5); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the representation in violation of MRPC 1.4(b) (counts 1-5); failed to return property to which the client is entitled in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (count 2); failed to refund an unearned fee in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (count 5); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of criminal law in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) (counts 1, 3, and 4); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (count 6); and failed to timely answer a request for investigation in violation of MRPC 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(A)(2) and MCR 9.113(B)(2) (count 6). The respondent was also found to have violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (c) and MCR 9.104(1)-(3) (counts 1-6).
The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred, pay restitution in the total amount of $3,660, and be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,010.45.
1. The respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since Nov. 8, 2022. See Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) issued Nov. 10, 2022.
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Michael G. Mack, P31173, Alpena, by the Attorney Discipline Board Emmet County Hearing Panel #3. Reprimand, effective April 4, 2023.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand with Conditions pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) that was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admissions that he was convicted on March 28, 2022, by guilty plea of two counts of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content in excess of .17, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625(1)(c) in matters titled People v. Michael Gerard Mack, 88-1 Judicial District Court, Case Nos. 21-0326-SD and 21-0329-SD. Additionally, the stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he did not give notice of either conviction to the grievance administrator and the Attorney Discipline Board, violated the conditions of his bond, failed to timely turn himself into the jail as ordered, and failed to timely answer a grievance administrator’s request for investigation relating to the bond violation and convictions.
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); failed notify the grievance administrator and Attorney Discipline Board of his convictions in violation of MCR 9.120(A)(1); knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); failed to timely answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2) in violation of MCR 9.104(7); engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,359.46.
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION
Matthew D. Novello, P63269, Highland, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #58. Suspension, 180 days, effective March 11, 2023.1
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found by default that the respondent committed professional misconduct by abandoning his representation of three separate clients and failed to answer four requests for investigation.
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that the respondent neglected a matter in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (counts 1-3); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) (counts 1-3); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 (counts 1-3); failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of 1.4(a) (counts 1-3); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision regarding the representation in violation of MRPC 1.4(b) (counts 1-3); failed to take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests after termination of representation in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (count 3); failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (count 4); engaged in conduct that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) (all counts); engaged in conduct involving 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); engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) (all counts); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2) (all counts); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (all counts); and failed to answer a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7), MCR 9.113(A) and MCR 9.113(B)(2) (count 4).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 180 days, effective March 11, 2023, and that the respondent pay restitution totaling $3,000. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,750.86.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Dec. 8, 2022. Please see Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), issued Dec. 12, 2022, in Grievance Administrator v. Matthew D. Novello, 22-76-GA.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Kathleen K. Shannon, P54261, Traverse City, by the Attorney Discipline Board Grand Traverse County Hearing Panel #1. Reprimand, effective April 5, 2023.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) that was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that she was convicted on August 10, 2022, by guilty plea of Operating While Intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257.6251-A in People v. Kathleen K. Shannon, 87-B District Court, Case No. 22-26261-SD-2.
Based on the respondent’s conviction, admission, and the parties’ stipulation, 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).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $806.93.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Thomas R. Warnicke, P47148, Detroit, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #21. Reprimand, effective April 6, 2023.
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 no contest plea as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct while representing a client in a civil action. Based upon the respondent’s no contest plea and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client in violation of MRPC 3.2; in representing a client, used means that had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third party in violation of MRPC 4.4; and engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $772.67.