SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS
Daniel J. Andoni, P67098, Flint, by the Attorney Discipline Board Genesee County Hearing Panel #2. Suspension, 179 days, effective Feb. 23, 2024.
Based on the respondent’s default and evidence presented to the hearing panel at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of two separate clients in their child support and visitation matters and another client in a family court matter and when he failed to timely answer two requests for investigation as set forth in a four-count formal complaint filed by the grievance administrator.
The panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (counts 1-2); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 (counts 1-2); 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(a) (counts 1-3); charged an excessive fee in violation of MRPC 1.5 [counts 1-2]; failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation such as giving reasonable notice to the client, 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) (counts 1-3); 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) (count 2); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) (counts 1-4); 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 1-4); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (counts 1-4); and failed to knowingly answer a request for investigation or demand for information in conformity with MCR 9.113(A)(B)(2) in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (count 4).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 179 days, that he pay restitution in the total amount of $3,500, and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,845.47
INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)
Jason Robert Baker, P72645, Grand Rapids, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kent County Hearing Panel #2. Interim suspension, effective Feb. 6, 2024.
The respondent failed to appear for a Jan. 23, 2024, 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 Feb. 6, 2024, and until further order of the panel or the board.
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
W. Dane Carey, P79898, Grayling, by the Attorney Discipline Board Grand Traverse County Hearing Panel #1. Suspension, 179 days, effective Jan. 31, 2024.
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 that he pled guilty to two felonies, Possession of a Controlled Substance, in violation of MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i), and Using a Computer to Commit a Crime, in violation of MCL 750.145(D)(2)(d); that his conduct violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law, and constituted professional misconduct; and to all of the factual and misconduct allegations set forth in the formal complaint.
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); 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 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’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 179 days effective immediately upon entry as agreed to by the parties and accepted by the panel. The panel also ordered that the respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $837.82.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Lucas X. Dillon, P75866, East Lansing, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #1.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand 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 Sept. 16, 2022, by guilty plea of operating a motor vehicle while visibly impaired in violation of MCL 257.625(3), a misdemeanor, in a matter titled People v. Lucas Dillon, 65A District Court, Case No. 220977-OD, as set forth in a notice of filing of judgment of conviction by the grievance administrator.
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. Costs were assessed in the amount of $759.97.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Joseph J. Farah, P30439, Grand Blanc, by the Attorney Discipline Board Livingston County Hearing Panel #1. Reprimand, effective Feb. 22, 2024.
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 to the factual allegations and no-contest plea to the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint in its entirety.
Based upon the respondent’s admission and no-contest plea as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his tenure as a judge when he made comments of a sexual nature and sent inappropriate text messages to a third-year law student who was working for respondent as an intern at the Genesee County Circuit Court.
Based upon the respondent’s admissions, no-contest plea, and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process in violation of MRPC 6.5; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper 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); 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 violated the rules of professional conduct in violation of MCR 9.104(4).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.
REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
Richard G. Kessler, P34755, Grand Rapids, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kent
County Hearing Panel #1. Reprimand, effective Feb. 15, 2024.
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 parties’ agreement to dismiss paragraphs 27(a) and (d)-(h) and 55(a) and (d)-(h) of the formal complaint. The stipulation also contained the respondent’s no-contest plea to the factual allegations and grounds for discipline set forth in the remaining paragraphs of the formal complaint, namely that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of two clients in immigration matters.
Based upon the respondent’s 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 and 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).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and pay restitution totaling $15,130. Costs were assessed in the amount of $759.97.
DISBARMENT
Michael G. Mack, P31173, Alpena, by the Attorney Discipline Board Emmet County Hearing Panel #3. Disbarment, effective Feb. 15, 2024.1
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, including show cause proceedings based upon the respondent’s failure to comply with the panel’s earlier Order of Reprimand with Conditions (By Consent) issued in Grievance Administrator v. Michael G. Mack, 2260JC, 2261GA, the panel found by default that the respondent failed to follow the requirements of the panel’s previous order; committed professional misconduct while serving as the assigned judge in a case titled State of Michigan v. Kala McDonald, 26th Circuit Court Case No. 2017-8132-FH; sent numerous explicit sexual text messages to a client requesting suggestive photos and sexual favors and encouraging the on-probation client to drink alcohol; practiced while his license was suspended; and failed to respond to a grievance administrator’s request for investigation.
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented by the grievance administrator, the panel found that the respondent failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary in violation of Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct (MCJC) Canon 1 [count 1]; failed to avoid all impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in violation of MCJC Canon 2(A) [count 1]; failed to observe and respect the law in violation of MCJC Canon 2(B) [count 1]; allowed social or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct or judgment in violation of MCJC Canon 2(C) [count 1]; failed to remain faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in the law in violation of MCJC Canon 3(A)(1) [count 1]; failed to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants and others with whom he dealt in an official capacity in violation of MCJC Canon 3(A)(3) [count 1]; initiated, permitted, or considered ex parte communications or considered other communications made to him outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding in violation of MCJC Canon 3(A)(4) [count 1]; made pledges, promises, or commitments that were inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that were likely to come before the court in violation of Canon 3(A)(7); failed to raise the issue of disqualification whenever he had grounds to believe that grounds for disqualification may exist under MCR 2.003(C) in violation of MCJC Canon 3(C) [count 1]; failed to provide competent representation to a client in violation of MRPC 1.1 [count 2]; failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available means in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) [count 2]; counseled a client to engage or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is illegal or fraudulent in violation of MRPC 1.2(c) [count 2]; represented a client when the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests contrary to MRPC 1.7(b) [count 2]; practiced law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction in violation of MRPC 5.5 [count 2]; failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process in violation of MRPC 6.5(a) [count 2]; failed to treat every person fairly with courtesy and respect in violation of MRPC 6.5(b) [count 1]; knowingly failed to respond to lawful demands for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a) [count 4]; engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law of a state, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615 in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) [counts 1 and 3]; and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and 9.104(1) [counts 1-4].
The panel also found that the respondent committed the following violations of the Michigan Court Rules: 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 1-4]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-4]; engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4) [counts 1-4]; engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law of the state, an ordinance, or tribal law in violation of MCR 9.104(5) [count 3]; failed to answer a grievance administrator’s request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7) [count 4]; 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 3]; practiced law, had client contact, appeared as an attorney in court, and/or held himself out as an attorney while suspended in violation of MCR 9.119(E) [count 3]; engaged in persistent incompetence in the performance of his judicial duties in violation of MCR 9.202(B)(1) (a) [count 1]; treated a person unfairly or discourteously because of the person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic in violation of MCR 9.202(B)(1)(d) [count 1]; misused his judicial office for personal advantage or gain or for the advantage or gain of another in violation of 9.202(B)(1)(e) [count 1]; and engaged in conduct that violates the Code of Judicial Conduct or the Rules of Professional Conduct whether the conduct occurred before or after he became a judge or was related to judicial office in violation of MCR 9.202(B)(2).
The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,283.20.
1. The respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since April 20, 2023. Please see Notice of Automatic Suspension for Non-Payment of Costs, issued April 24, 2023, in Grievance Administrator v Michael G. Mack, 22-60-JC; 22-61-GA.
DISBARMENT (BY CONSENT)
Samir W. Mashni, P32552, Redford, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #15. Disbarment, effective Feb. 16, 2024.
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 acknowledgment that he was convicted by guilty plea on Jan. 18, 2023, of the felony offense of Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Mail Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1341, and 1346 and that his conviction constituted professional misconduct.
Based on 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), and 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).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $774.47.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION
Donald J. Neville, P60213, Taylor, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #9. Disbarment, effective March 1, 2024.1
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found by default that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of two separate, unrelated clients, one in a child custody matter and the other in several pending legal matters, and by failing to answer a request for investigation as alleged in a three-count formal complaint.
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented by the grievance administrator, the panel found that with regard to count 1, the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession 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); failed to knowingly answer a demand for information in conformity with MCR 9.113(A)(B)(2) in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MRPC 8.1(A)(2); and engaged in conduct that violates the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MCR 9.104(4) and MRPC 8.4(a).
With regard to count 2, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objective of a client through reasonably available means in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); upon termination, failed to return an unearned fee in violation MRPC 1.16(d); failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client in violation of MRPC 3.2; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession 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 Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MCR 9.104(4) and MRPC 8.4(a). With regard to count 3, the panel found that the respondent knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A) and MCR 9.113(B)(2) in violation of MCR 9.104(7); engaged in conduct that violates the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MCR 9.104(4) and MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); 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 that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred and pay restitution in the total amount of $3,760. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,706.50.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since July 7, 2023. See, Notice of Suspension with Conditions and Restitution, issued July 10, 2023, in Grievance Administrator v Donald J. Neville, 23-22-JC; 23-23-GA.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Aubrey H. Tobin, P31256, West Bloomfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #51. Reprimand, effective Feb. 16, 2024.
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 parties’ agreement to dismiss the factual statements set forth in paragraphs 13, 18, and 20 and the allegations of professional misconduct contained in subparagraphs 25(a), (c)(e), (h) and (i) of the formal complaint and to amend para graphs 19, 22, and 23 of the formal complaint as provided in the stipulation. The stipulation also contained the respondent’s no contest plea to the factual allegations and grounds for discipline set forth in the remaining paragraphs of the formal complaint, namely that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of two clients in a landlord/ tenant dispute. Specifically, the respondent failed to notify opposing counsel and the court that the rental payments his clients were supposed to be depositing into an escrow account maintained by the respondent were not current.
Based upon the respondent’s no contest plea and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent failed to act with fairness to opposing party and counsel in violation of MRPC 3.4; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(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 panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $812.54.
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION
Thomas J. Wilson, P33071, Lexington, by the Attorney Discipline Board Genesee County Hearing Panel #3. Suspension, 180 Days, effective March 5, 2024.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found by default that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of two clients and when he failed to answer a request for investigation filed by one of the clients as set forth in a two-count formal complaint filed by the grievance administrator. Based on the respondent’s default, the hearing panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter 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 his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of 1.4(a) [count 1]; 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) [count 1]; failed to take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests upon termination of representation in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [count 1]; failed to expedite litigation in violation of MRPC 3.2 [count 1]; 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 violates the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) [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) [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]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-2]; 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 2].
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days, effective March 5, 2024, and that he pay restitution totaling $1,270. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,730.27.
SUSPENSION
David L. Wisz, P55981, Birmingham, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #54. Suspension, 18 months, effective March 9, 2024.1
The grievance administrator filed a formal complaint alleging that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct when he applied for a position as a patent attorney even though his license to practice law was suspended from a prior unrelated disciplinary matter, knowingly and intentionally submitted an outdated resume that contained false information in order to deceive his prospective employer, and made a false statement about his employment history in his affidavit of personal history attached to his petition for reinstatement filed on May 28, 2022.
The panel found that the respondent made a false statement of material fact regarding his employment history on his affidavit of personal history in violation of MRPC 8.1(a) (1) and MCR 9.104(6); submitted false information in his affidavit of personal history and that this submission was dishonest, deceitful, and a misrepresentation reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); held himself out as an attorney while his license to practice law was suspended in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(4); and violated an order of discipline by submitting a resume that listed the respondent’s Michigan bar license while his license was suspended in violation of MCR 9.104(9). The panel also found that the respondent’s conduct violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(c).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 18 months, effective March 9, 2024. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,208.
1. The respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since Oct. 1, 2021. See Notice of Suspension (By Consent) issued on July 30, 2021, in Grievance Administrator v David L. Wisz, 20-79-GA.
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
Carl M. Woodard, P37502, Dansville, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #6. Suspension, one year, effective Feb. 10, 2024.1
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. Based upon the respondent’s admissions to all of the allegations set forth in the formal complaint, the panel found that he committed professional misconduct during his representation of two clients in a civil matter. Specifically, the respondent failed to comply with discovery, resulting in the dismissal of his clients’ case. Thereafter, the respondent misrepresented to his clients that the defendant wished to settle and that he had submitted a proposal to the defendant’s insurance company. The respondent also failed to advise his clients that he had a pending disciplinary case and had agreed to accept a 180-day suspension of his license to practice law in Michigan, effective May 4, 2021. The panel also found that the respondent failed to answer a request for investigation served on him by the grievance administrator.
Based upon the respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the hearing panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him 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 violation of MRPC 1.3 [count 1]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [count 1]; 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) [count 1]; failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation, such as failing to surrender papers and property to which the client is entitled and failing to refund any advance payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [count 1]; 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 involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness in violation of MCR 8.4(b) [count 1]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administrator of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) [count 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]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-2]; engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) [counts 1-2]; and failed to answer a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7), MCR 9.112(A), and MCR 9.113(B)(2) [count 2].
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for one year effective Feb. 10, 2024, and that the respondent pay restitution totaling $1,000. Costs were assessed in the amount of $769.94.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since May 4, 2021. See Notice of Suspension & Restitution with Condition (By Consent), issued May 4, 2021, Grievance Administrator v Carl M. Woodard, 2074GA.