SUSPENSION
Tony L. Axam, P23925, Atlanta, Georgia, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Five-year suspension, effective March 28, 2024.
The grievance administrator filed a Combined Notice of Filing of Reciprocal Discipline and Filing of Formal Complaint that attached, in relevant part, a certified copy of an order entered by the Supreme Court of Georgia accepting the voluntary surrender of the respondent’s license to practice law in Georgia on Oct. 5, 2015, in a matter titled In the Matter of Tony L. Axam, 297 Ga. 786; 786 SE2d 222 (2015).
An Order Regarding Imposition of Reciprocal Discipline and Holding Formal Complaint in Abeyance was issued by the board on July 7, 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 order also ordered the grievance administrator to serve the respondent with the July 7, 2023, order and formal complaint but the assignment of a hearing panel and the respondent’s requirement to file an answer to the formal complaint were held in abeyance until further order of the board.
On Feb. 28, 2024, the board issued an order that suspended the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan for five years, effective March 28, 2024. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,541.16. The board further ordered that the formal complaint be severed from the reciprocal discipline matter to be assigned to a hearing panel for further proceedings with regard to the formal complaint.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Maria K. Barone, P53154, Plymouth, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #12. Reprimand, effective March 22, 2024.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed an Amended 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 amended stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that she was convicted by guilty plea of operating while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC 257.6251-A in People v. Maria Kanjuparamban Barone, 35th District Court, Case No. 22P1789-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’ amended stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when she 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 amended stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $770.90.
SUSPENSION
Mark D. Goldman, P42697, Scottsdale, Arizona, by the Attorney Discipline Board Suspension. 30 days, effective April 3, 2024.
In a reciprocal discipline proceeding filed pursuant to MCR 9.120(C), the grievance administrator filed a certified copy of a Final Judgment and Order and Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions of the presiding disciplinary judge of the Arizona Supreme Court showing that the court suspended the respondent’s Arizona law license on Sept. 18, 2023, for a period of 30 days in the matter captioned In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Mark D. Goldman, Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Arizona Supreme Court, Case No. PDJ 2022-9059.
An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the board and served on the parties on Jan. 10, 2024. The 21-day period referenced in MCR 9.120(C)(2)(b) expired without objection or a request for hearing by either party. As a result, the respondent was deemed to be in default with the same effect as a default in a civil action pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(6).
On March 5, 2024, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,500.
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION
Brandon John Janssen, P78132, Detroit, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #3. Suspension, 180 days, effective March 19, 2024.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of four separate clients in their individual immigration-related matters, when he prepared and executed a quit claim deed for a fifth client, and when he failed to answer requests for investigations filed by two of the clients.
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing panel found that the respondent handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances in violation of MRPC 1.1(b) (counts 3 and 5); neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (counts 4-5); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 (counts 2, 4, and 5); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (counts 2, 4, and 5); 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 3 and 5); 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 4); upon termination of representation, failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests such as refunding unearned fees and client files in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (counts 2 and 4); made a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or failed to correct a false statement of fact or law previously made in violation of MRPC 3.3(a) (count 5); failed to make reasonable efforts to supervise the conduct of a nonlawyer assistant in violation of MRPC 5.3 (counts 2, 4, and 5); 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 6); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or failed to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known to him in connection with a disciplinary matter in violation of MRPC 8.1(a) (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 2-6); 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 2-6); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (counts 2-6).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days, effective March 19, 2024; that he pay restitution totaling $5,275; and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,932.25.
SUSPENSION1
Kenneth B. Morgan, P34492, Farmington Hills, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Suspension, 180 days, effective March 19, 2024.
The grievance administrator filed a notice of filing of reciprocal discipline under MCR 9.120(C) that attached a certified copy of an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan suspending the respondent from practice before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on July 14, 2022, for failing to comply with the terms of a disciplinary order entered by a three-judge panel of the court in a matter titled In Re: Attorney Kenneth B. Morgan, Administrative Order No. 22-AD-057. Although no term for the suspension imposed was referenced in the order, the administrator indicated that comparable discipline in Michigan would be a suspension of 180 days or more.
Pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(2), an order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the board on Nov. 20, 2023, ordering the parties to inform the board in writing within 21 days from the service of the order (i) of any objection to the imposition of comparable discipline 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 Nov. 20, 2023, order expired without objection or request for hearing by either party.
On Feb. 19, 2024, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days, effective March 19, 2024. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,508.77.
1 Formal Complaint 23-89-GA was discontinued by the board. See Order Regarding Imposition of Reciprocal Discipline issued on Nov. 20, 2023.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS
Donald J. Neville, P60213, Taylor. Disbarment, effective July 7, 2023.
The grievance administrator filed a combined Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction and an eight-count formal complaint against the respondent. The notice filed in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3) stated that the respondent was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of impaired driving on July 20, 2021, in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257.625(3)-A in a matter titled State of Michigan v. Donald J. Neville, 53rd Judicial District Court, Case No. 21-0038-SD. The eight-count formal complaint alleged that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of six separate clients when he attended two separate court appearances and when he failed to respond to a subpoena issued by the grievance administrator.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115 and 9.120, Tri-County Hearing Panel #12 found that based on the respondent’s conviction, 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).
Based on the respondent’s default for failing to answer the formal complaint and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that the respondent failed to represent a client competently in violation of MRPC 1.1(a) [count 2]; handled a matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances in violation of MRPC 1.1(b) [count 7]; neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [counts 1 and 3-7]; failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) [counts 1 and 3-7]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 [counts 1-6]; 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) [counts 3-6]; 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) [counts 3, 4, 6, and 7]; charged an excessive fee that was not properly explained in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) and (b) [count 6]; engaged in a conflict of interest by allowing his personal interests to affect the representation of his client in violation of MRPC 1.7(b)(2) [count 1]; failed to promptly pay or deliver funds that the client or third person is entitled to receive in violation of MRPC 1.15(B)(3) [count 6]; failed to withdraw from the case prior to appearing due to his physical condition in violation of MRPC 1.16(a)(2) [counts 2 and 7]; upon termination of representation, failed to promptly refund an unearned fee in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [counts 3-6]; failed to expedite litigation in violation of MRPC 3.2 [counts 2-5 and 7]; knowingly made a false statement of material fact to the tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1) [count 7]; engaged in inappropriate conduct towards the tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.5(d) [counts 2 and 7]; knowingly made a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(1) [count 3]; failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [count 8]; engaged in conduct that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) [counts 1-7]; 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) [counts 1 and 3-6]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and 9.104(1) [counts 1-5 and 7-8]; stated or implied that he possessed an ability to improperly influence the judge in his client’s matter in violation of MRPC 8.4(d) [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 1-7]; and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-7].
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 181 days effective July 7, 2023, that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct, and pay restitution totaling $8,335. The grievance administrator filed a timely petition for review and after proceedings held in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board increased discipline from a 181- day suspension of the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan to disbarment and affirmed the restitution and condition provisions imposed by the panel. Additional costs incurred for the review proceedings were assessed totaling $3,389.39.
REINSTATEMENT
On April 5, 2023, Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #1 entered an Order of Suspension with Conditions (By Consent) suspending the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 30 days, effective April 27, 2023. On March 18, 2024, 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, Robert J. Pleznac, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective March 27, 2024.
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Scott W. Powers, P59882, Highland, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #67. Reprimand, effective March 29, 2024.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand (With Conditions) 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. 22, 2022, by no contest plea of Domestic Violence — Aggravated, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC Code 750.81A2 in a matter titled People v. Scott W. Powers, Oakland County Circuit Court, Case No. 2022-279586-FH, as set forth in a Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction by the grievance administrator.
Based upon the respondent’s conviction, admission, 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).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and subject to certain conditions. Costs were assessed in the amount of $961.88.
SUSPENSION
Omar Fahmi Shaaban, P80425, Toledo, Ohio, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Suspension, one year, effective April 3, 2024.
In a reciprocal discipline proceeding filed pursuant to MCR 9.120(C), the grievance administrator filed a certified copy of an order from the Supreme Court of Ohio suspending the respondent’s license to practice law in Ohio for two years with one year stayed with conditions effective Oct. 11, 2023, in a matter titled Disciplinary Counsel v. Omar Fahmi Shaaban, Case No. 2023-0179.
An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the board and served on the parties on Jan. 24, 2024. The 21-day period referenced in MCR 9.120(C)(2)(b) expired without objection or a request for hearing by either party. As a result, the respondent was deemed to be in default with the same effect as a default in a civil action pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(6).
On March 5, 2024, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for one year. A stayed suspension is not included as a type of discipline available in Michigan under MCR 9.106 and the conditions ordered by the Ohio Supreme Court were deemed unnecessary in Michigan. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,511.41.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Jeffrey P. Thennisch, P51499, Clarkston, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #71. Reprimand, effective March 27, 2024.
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 and the amended stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent’s IOLTA was overdrawn by a transaction that was a business expense and should have been paid out of his business account and that he knowingly deposited personal funds into his IOLTA and used his IOLTA to convey wire transfers of funds to acquaintances to avoid family scrutiny of his personal spending. More specifically, the panel found that the respondent commingled personal and client funds in a trust account in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) and kept his own funds in a client trust account beyond an amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution charges or fees in violation of MRPC 1.15(f). The panel also found that the respondent’s conduct violated MCR 9.104(2) and (3).
In accordance with the amended stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $927.14.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Kevin W. Weller, P56943, Cheboygan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Emmet County Hearing Panel #1. Reprimand, effective March 29, 2024.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed an Amended 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 amended stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and pled guilty to operating while intoxicated on August 11, 2023, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257.6251-A in a matter titled People v. Kevin W. Weller, 89th District Court Case No. 23-0345-SD, as set forth in a Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction by the grievance administrator.
Based upon the respondent’s conviction, admission, and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he 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 reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $771.76.