DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

James J. Kiebel, P75914, Wyoming, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kent County Hearing Panel #3. Disbarment, effective Nov. 3, 2023.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found by default that the respondent committed professional misconduct in his representation of three separate clients in a divorce action, a driver’s license restoration matter, and a custody and parenting time dispute as charged in the three-count formal complaint filed by the grievance administrator.

Based on the respondent’s default and the 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) [counts 1-3]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of MRPC 1.3 [counts 1-3]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [counts 1- 3]; 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) [counts 1-3]; failed to seek permission from the tribunal to withdraw from representation in violation of MRPC 1.16(b) [count 2]; upon termination of representation, failed to refund any advanced payment of fee that had not been earned in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [counts 1 and 3]; in the course of representing a client, knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a third person in violation ofMRPC 4.1 [counts 2-3]; 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]; and knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [count 3]. The respondent was also found to have violated MRPC 8.4(b) and (c) and MCR 9.104(1)-(3) [counts 1-3].

The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred and pay restitution in the total amount of $6,050. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,653.20.

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

Michael G. Mack, P31173, Alpena, by the Attorney Discipline Board Emmet CountyHearing Panel #3. Interim suspension, effective Oct. 25, 2023.

The respondent failed to appear at the Oct. 5, 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) [Failure to Appear], effective Oct. 25, 2023, and until further order of the panel or the board.

REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Michael Thomas Mamut, P81102, Southfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #64. Reprimand, effective Nov. 7, 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 stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted on Oct. 31, 2022, by guilty plea of operating while intoxicated, second offense, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625(1) in a matter titled People of the State of Michigan v. Michael Thomas Mamut, 51st District Court (City of Waterford, County of Oakland, State of Michigan), Case No. 22-0340-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 MCR 9.104(5).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded with conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $800.40.

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION

Adam C. Reddick, P71543, Bay City, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #1. Suspension, one year, effective Nov. 3, 2023.¹

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found by default that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in a driver’s license reinstatement and a driving while license suspended (DWLS) case. Furthermore, despite the fact that the respondent’s license to practice law was suspended in two unrelated disciplinary matters and that he has remained suspended continuously since Oct. 25, 2019, the respondent remained the attorney of record on both the driver’s license reinstatement and DWLS cases. The panel also found that the respondent failed to answer a request for investigation served on him by the grievance administrator.

Based on the respondent’s default, the hearing panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [count 1]; failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) [count 1]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 [count 1]; 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 [count 1]; failed to notify an active client in writing by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, of his suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(A) [count1]; failed to file with the tribunal and all parties a notice of the attorney’s disqualification from the practice of law in violation of MCR 9.119(B) [count 1]; failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2) in violation of MCR 9.104(7) [count 2]; knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [count 2]; engaged in conduct that is a violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(A)(4) [counts 1-2]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) [count 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) [counts 1-2]; engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-2]; and violated an order of discipline in violation of MCR 9.104(9) [count 2].

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for one year, effective Nov. 3, 2023, and that the respondent pay restitution totaling $1,500. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,796.48.

1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law since Oct. 25, 2019. See Notice of Suspension with Conditions, Grievance Administrator v Adam C. Reddick, Case No. 19-24-GA, issued Oct. 31, 2019.