REINSTATEMENT
On Jan. 20, 2023, Tri-County Hearing Panel #101 entered an Order of Suspension suspending the respondent from the practice law in Michigan for 179 days effective Feb. 11, 2023. On Aug. 1, 2023, the respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) attesting that he has fully complied with all requirements of the panel’s order and will continue to comply with the order until and unless reinstated. The grievance administrator did not file an objection to respondent’s affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) and the board being otherwise advised;
NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that the respondent, Paul Bukowski, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective Aug. 9, 2023.
REINSTATEMENT
On Feb. 28, 2022, Kent County Hearing Panel #4 entered an Order of Suspension with Conditions suspending the respondent from the practice law in Michigan for 60 days with conditions. The grievance administrator filed a timely petition for review, and the respondent filed a cross-petition for review and a petition for stay of discipline, which resulted in an automatic stay of the hearing panel’s order of suspension with conditions.
After conducting review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board affirmed the hearing panel’s order of suspension with conditions on June 15, 2022. On Oct. 20, 2022, the respondent filed a timely application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court pursuant to MCR 9.122(A). On May 19, 2023, the Court issued an order denying the respondent’s application for leave to appeal. As a result, the order of suspension with conditions became effective on June 10, 2023.
On Aug. 2, 2023, the respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) attesting that he has fully complied with all requirements of the panel’s order and will continue to comply with the order until and unless reinstated. 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 the respondent, David Charron, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective Aug. 11, 2023.
INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)
George D. Gostias, P73774, Livonia, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #10. Interim suspension, effective Aug. 24, 2023.
The respondent failed to appear at the Aug. 17, 2023, 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 Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) effective Aug. 24, 2023, and until further order of the panel or the board.
SUSPENSION(PENDING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION)
Nejla K. Lane, P68737, Chicago, Illinois, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Suspension, six months, effective Aug. 4, 2023.
The grievance administrator filed a notice of filing of reciprocal discipline pursuant to MCR 9.120(C) that attached a certified copy of an order issued by the Illinois Supreme Court on Jan. 17, 2023, in a matter titled In re Nejla Lane, Case No. M.R. 031402, that suspended the respondent from the practice of law in Illinois for nine months with the suspension stayed after six months by a six-month period of probation, subject to conditions, effective Feb. 7, 2023. In the notice, the grievance administrator requested that the board impose a six-month suspension, which he represented would be comparable discipline in Michigan. The administrator did not believe that the conditions ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court order were necessary.
An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the board on May 11, 2023, ordering the parties to, within 21 days from service of the order, inform the board in writing (i) of any objection to the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan based on the grounds set forth in MCR 9.120(C)(1) and (ii) whether a hearing was requested. The 21-day period set forth in the board’s order expired without objection or request for hearing by either party. On July 6, 2023, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Michigan for six months effective Aug. 4, 2023. The respondent filed a timely motion for reconsideration, which is currently pending before the board.
Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,527.05.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Alexander Melnikov, P73960, Hallandale, Florida, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #15. Suspension, 180 days, effective Aug. 19, 2023.1
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. Based upon the respondent’s admissions to all of the allegations set forth in the formal complaint, which included the fact that he was convicted by no contest plea of misdemeanor assault, harassing a witness, and misdemeanor battery in a matter titled State of Florida v. Alexander A. Melnikov, Broward County Circuit Court, Case No. 200-148-CF-10A, and sentenced to 24 months of probation, which was taken under advisement and an adjudication of guilt was withheld,2 the panel found that he committed professional misconduct when he engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law.
Based on the respondent’s admissions 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 MRPC 8.4(b) and MCR 9.104(5); 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 to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); 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’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $768.96.
1. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since August 19, 2016. Please see Notice of Suspension with Condition, issued March 27, 2017, Grievance Administrator v Alexander Melnikov, 15-144-JC; 15-145-GA.
2. Florida statute provides that a withheld sentence allows a judge to order probation but not formally convict a defendant.
DISBARMENT WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)
Thomas E. Moorhead, P23231, Owosso, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #4. Disbarment, effective Sept. 8, 2023.1
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Disbarment 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 that he was convicted on July 14, 2022, by guilty plea, of the felony offense of Check Non-Sufficient Funds $500 or More in violation of MCL 750.1313C in a matter titled People v. Thomas Edward Moorhead, Ingham County Circuit Court, Case No. 21-006004-VJCM-C30; 21-5558-FH, and that his conviction constituted professional misconduct in violation of MCR 9.104(5). In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended effective July 14, 2022, the date the court accepted respondent’s guilty plea.
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, 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 MCR 9.104(5).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $817.27.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since July 14, 2022. Please see Notice of Automatic Interim Suspension issued November 29, 2022.
INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)
Raymond G. Mullins, P23101, Ypsilanti, by the Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #5. Interim suspension, effective Aug. 23, 2023.
The respondent failed to appear at the Aug. 9, 2023, 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 pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) effective Aug. 23, 2023, and until further order of the panel or the board.
REINSTATEMENT
On Feb. 28, 2023, Tri-County Hearing Panel #53 entered an order suspending the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 179 days effective June 10, 2022. On Aug. 23, 2023, the respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) attesting that he has fully complied with all requirements of the panel’s order and will continue to comply with the order until and unless reinstated. The grievance administrator’s counsel notified the board that the administrator has no objection to the respondent’s affidavit and reinstatement pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) and the board being otherwise advised;
NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Andrew J. Paluda, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective Sept. 8, 2023.
REINSTATEMENT
On May 1, 2023, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board entered an order suspending the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 90 days, effective May 30, 2023. On Aug. 28, 2023, the respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) attesting that she has fully complied with all requirements of the panel’s order and will continue to comply with the order until and unless reinstated. 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 the respondent, Hanna M. Renna, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective Sept. 5, 2023.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Nelson O. Ropke, P67575, Grosse Pointe, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #18. Reprimand, effective Aug. 8, 2023.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed an Amended 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 amended stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted on May 13, 2021, by pleading no contest to Failing to Stop or Identify After a Property Damage Accident in violation of MCL 257.618 in a matter titled City of Grosse Pointe v. Nelson Otto Ropke, Grosse Pointe Municipal Court, Case No. 21GR00046-OD.
Based on the respondent’s conviction, admission, and the parties’ amended 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 MCR 9.104(5) and MRPC 8.4(b).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $759.24.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Clarice Y. Williams, P33415, Southfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #58. Reprimand, effective Aug. 16, 2023.
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 parties’ stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that she committed professional misconduct during her representation of the defendant in a quiet title action.
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent committed misconduct when she failed to competently represent her client in a matter in violation of MRPC 1.1; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her client in violation of MRPC 1.3; filed pleadings and motions asserting or controverting issues without a basis for doing so that was frivolous in violation of MRPC 3.1; failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client in violation of MRPC 3.2; 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. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $789.20.
INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)
Thomas J. Wilson, P33071, Lexington, by the Attorney Discipline Board Genesee County Hearing Panel #3. Interim suspension, effective Aug. 29, 2023. The respondent failed to appear at the Aug. 15, 2023, 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 Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) effective Aug. 29, 2023, and until further order of the panel or the board.