SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Frederick J. Blackmond, P29696, Lansing, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #2. Suspension, 90 days, effective May 1, 2023.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of 90-Day Suspension with Conditions pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains the respondent’s admission to the factual allegations and allegations of misconduct set forth in the formal complaint filed by the administrator in its entirety. Specifically, the respondent admitted that he committed professional misconduct during his representation of a criminal defendant by failing to appear for his client’s first scheduled preliminary examination, appearing to be under the influence of an unknown substance on the days of two other scheduled hearings, and conceding on the record at the last hearing that he was not in a condition to proceed.
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, 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 adequately keep the 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); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of 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’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days, effective May 1, 2023, as agreed to by the parties. The panel also ordered that the respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $772.74.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
Russell D. Brown, P60583, Plymouth, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #13. Disbarment, effective April 25, 2023.1
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a stipulation for consent order of discipline pursuant to 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 statements and allegations of misconduct set forth in the two-count formal complaint in its entirety. Specifically, the respondent admitted to sending several emails to opposing counsel that were disrespectful and disparaging while defending two clients in a civil action and in a separate, unrelated civil matter he was retained to file on behalf of a couple, neglecting their matter, failing to return requested documents and unearned fees, making misrepresentations to them about the status of their matter, and failing to notify them that his license to practice law had been suspended.
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation such as giving notice to the client, returning papers and property, and refunding unearned fees in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out as a lawyer after his suspension in violation of MRPC 5.5(b)(2) and MCR 9.119(E)(4); failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process in violation of MRPC 6.5; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law which reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); violated an order of discipline in violation of MCR 9.104(9); failed to notify all active clients in writing of his suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(A); and contacted clients during a period of suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(2). The panel also found the respondent to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(c).
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 April 25, 2023, and that he pay restitution totaling $3,160. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $854.92. 1. The respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since Nov. 20, 2021. See Notice of Suspension and Restitution with Conditions, issued Nov. 30, 2021, Grievance Administrator v. Russell D. Brown, 21-11-GA.
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Richard Francis Cummins, P69582, Traverse City, by the Attorney Discipline Board Emmet County Hearing Panel #3. Reprimand, effective April 27, 2023.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand with Condition 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 he was convicted by guilty plea of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated with a BAC of .17 or more, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625(1)(c), in People v. Richard Francis Cummins, 70th District Court, Case No. 22-4497-SD.
Based on the respondent’s conviction, admission, and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he 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 MRPC 8.4(b) and MCR 9.104(5).
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 $776.79
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Heather M. Gosnick, P75344, Chelsea, by the Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #4. Reprimand, effective April 14, 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 by guilty pleas on March 2, 2018, and April 19, 2022, respectively, of Driving While License Suspended/Revoked/Denied, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257.9041B, in People v. Heather Marie Gosnick, 14A3 District Court, Case No. 1730527SD; and Allowing Intoxicated Person to Operate a Motor Vehicle, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257.6252A, in People v. Heather Marie Gosnick, 14A3 District Court, Case No. 1830190SD.
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 $759.82.
AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION FOR NONPAYMENT OF COSTS
Michael G. Mack, P31173, Alpena, effective April 20, 2023.
On March 13, 2023, an Order of Reprimand with Conditions (By Consent) was issued by Emmet County Hearing Panel #3 in Grievance Administrator v. Michael G. Mack, Case Nos. 22-60JC; 22-61-GA. Pursuant to that order, the respondent was ordered to pay $1,359.46 in costs on or before April 4, 2023. The respondent failed to do so and a certification of nonpayment of costs was issued on April 12, 2023, in accordance with MCR 9.128(C).
Pursuant to MCR 9.128(D), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended on April 20, 2023, and will remain suspended until the costs have been paid or a payment plan is approved by the board, and the respondent has complied with MCR 9.119 and 9.123(A).
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Robert J. Pleznac, P18950, Kalamazoo, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #1. Suspension, 30 days, effective April 27, 2023.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains the respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of misconduct set forth in the formal complaint filed by the administrator in its entirety. Specifically, the respondent admitted that he misused his client trust account by causing an overdraft to occur in the account, commingled personal and client funds in the account, and neglected and provided incompetent representation in his client’s bankruptcy matter.
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent failed to provide competent representation of a client in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); failed to adequately prepare for his representation of his client in violation of MRPC 1.1(b); neglected his client’s legal matter in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to communicate with his client regarding the status of his legal matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to communicate with 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); 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 safeguard client funds in his IOLTA account in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); and deposited funds into his IOLTA account in an amount in excess of an amount 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(1)-(4) 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 and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,040.17.
REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Jerard M. Scanland, P74992, Southgate, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #10. Reprimand, effective April 19, 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. The parties’ stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he committed professional misconduct during his representation of three clients in their separate and unrelated real estate/ probate and civil matters as set forth in a three-count 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 failed to adequately 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) (counts 2-3); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 (counts 2-3); failed to return unearned fees in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (count 2); and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of MRPC 5.5(a) (count 1). In addition, the panel found that the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) (counts 1-3) and engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the court to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2) (counts 1-3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded, pay restitution totaling $5,998.34, and comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
David L. Wisz, P55981, Birmingham, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #57. Suspension, 30 days, effective April 13, 2023.1
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains the respondent’s admission that he was convicted on March 11, 2022, of one count of disorderly person, a misdemeanor offense, in violation of MCL 750.167, in a matter titled People v. David Leonard Wisz, 52/3 District Court Case No. 21-004466-SM. Based on the respondent’s admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law which constituted professional misconduct under MCR 9.104(5).
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 April 13, 2023. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $943.
1. The respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since Oct. 1, 2021. See Notice of [180-Day] Suspension (By Consent), issued July 30, 2021, in Grievance Administrator v. David L. Wisz, 20-79-GA.