AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Eric A. Buikema, P58379, Farmington, effective Aug. 7, 2023.
On Aug. 7, 2023, the respondent was convicted by guilty plea of one count of operating while intoxicated, third offense, in violation of MCL 257.625(1)(a), a felony offense, in a matter titled People v. Eric Allen Buikema, Lapeer County Circuit Court, Case No. 23-014499-FH. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended on the date of his felony conviction.
This matter has been 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).
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since June 20, 2019. Please see Notice of Suspension (By Consent), Case Nos. 19-15-MZ; 19-25-JC (Ref. 16-112-AI; 17-3-JC), issued July 2, 2019.
REPRIMAND (WITH CONDITIONS)
Michael H. Fortner, P46541, Southfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board before Tri-County Hearing Panel #69. Reprimand, effective Dec. 6, 2023.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115 and based on the evidence presented by the parties at the hearings held in this matter, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of his client in a no-fault insurance action. The panel found that the respondent failed to timely comply with discovery requests and failed to attend hearings and depositions which resulted in the dismissal of his client’s complaint. The panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) and failed to take reasonable efforts to expedite the litigation consistent with the interests of his client in violation of MRPC 3.2.
On Nov. 14, 2023, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded, effective Dec. 6, 2023, and comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,695.56.
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)
Steven M. Gittleman, P32828, Southfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #52. Suspension, 179 days, effective Dec. 1, 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 contained the respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct — that he misused his client trust account and during his representation of a client in a probate matter, he failed to deposit fees paid by a client into his IOLTA, failed to file a probate case with the court, failed to complete the legal work as agreed, and failed to provide a refund of the fees and costs despite promising his client he would do so — set forth in counts 1-2 of the formal complaint.
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent neglected his client’s legal matter in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (count 2); failed to seek the lawful objectives of his client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) (count 2); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of MRPC 1.3 (count 2); failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (count 2); failed to safeguard his client’s property in violation of MRPC 1.15 (counts 1-2); 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) (count 1); deposited personal 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) (count 1); failed to deposit advance legal fees and expenses into an IOLTA and withdraw them only as fees were earned or expenses incurred in violation MRPC 1.15(g) (count 2); and failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation, such as failing to refund any advance payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation of 1.16(d) (count 2). In addition, the panel found that the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) (counts 1-2); 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); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (counts 1-2).
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 179 days, effective Dec. 1, 2023. The panel also ordered that the respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct and that he pay restitution in the amount of $1,030. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $907.33.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Martin M. Holmes, P24240, North Muskegon, by the Attorney Discipline Board Muskegon County Hearing Panel #1. Reprimand, effective Nov. 28, 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 admissions that he was convicted on April 22, 2022, by guilty plea of operating while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625(1)(A) in a matter titled People v. Martin Holmes, 60th District Court (City of Muskegon, County of Muskegon, State of Michigan), Case No. 22-220522-SD, and that his conduct in that regard constituted professional misconduct. The stipulation also contained the respondent’s no-contest plea to the factual allegations and the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in paragraphs 7-10 of the formal complaint — that he did not give notice of his conviction to the grievance administrator and the Attorney Discipline Board.
Based on the respondent’s admissions, no-contest plea, and 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) and 8.4(b). The panel also found that the respondent failed to notify the grievance administrator and Attorney Discipline Board of his conviction in violation of MCR 9.120(A) and (B) and MRPC 8.1(a)(2); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct that violates the standards and rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4).
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 $780.47.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Tyler N. Ross, P75530, Bloomfield Hills, effective Sept. 28, 2023.
On Sept. 28, 2023, the respondent was convicted by guilty plea of conspiring to commit an offense against the United States in violation of 18 U.S. C. § 371 in a matter titled United States of America v. Tyler N. Ross, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-cr-20451. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended on the date of 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 under MCR 9.115(J).
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Ernest J. Walker, P58635, Benton Harbor, by the Attorney Discipline Board Berrien County Hearing Panel #1. Suspension, 30 days, effective Dec. 2, 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 contained the respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations that he filed a frivolous lawsuit in Colorado federal court against Dominion Voting Systems, Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and others and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in paragraphs 34 (a) and (c) of the 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 brought or defended a proceeding, or asserted or controverted an issue therein, where the basis for doing so was frivolous in violation of MRPC 3.1 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’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days. The panel further found that good cause existed for the order to take effect on Dec. 2, 2023, as agreed to by the parties. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $777.85.