REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Shaheen I. Imami, P54128, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Reprimand, effective May 2, 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 no contest plea to the factual allegations and allegations that he committed professional misconduct by misusing his IOLTA. Specifically, the respondent held a client’s funds in his IOLTA long term and disbursement of these funds was unreasonably delayed because the respondent no longer had access to the client file and bank records. In addition, the respondent negligently transferred client funds to an operating account and at times the combined balance of the operating account and IOLTA was less than the amount due to his client.
Based upon the respondent’s no contest plea and the stipulation of the parties, Tri-County Hearing Panel #2 found that the respondent failed to preserve complete records of account funds and other property for a period of five years after termination of the representation in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(2); failed to promptly pay or deliver funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and/or, upon request by the client or third person, failed to promptly render a full accounting regarding such property in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property, failed to deposit all client or third-person funds in an appropriate IOLTA or non-IOLTA account, and/or failed to identify and appropriately safeguard other property in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); 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 and subject to certain conditions. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,434.46.
REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
Patrick M. O’Connell, P42605, Coldwater. Reprimand, effective April 19, 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 Ingham County Hearing Panel #5. Based on the parties’ amended stipulation and the respondent’s admissions, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in a driver’s license restoration matter filed with the secretary of state.
Specifically, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); acted without reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter or comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); 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). The panel also found that the respondent’s conduct violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3).
In accordance with the amended stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and pay restitution totaling $1,500. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,046.40.
DISBARMENT
Jennifer Michelle Paine, P72037, Novi. Disbarment, effective May 20, 2023.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #59 found, based on the respondent’s admissions to all of the misconduct set forth in both formal complaints, that the respondent committed professional misconduct during her representation of four different clients in their respective divorce and post-judgment divorce matters while representing a client in adoption proceedings and in her own criminal matter after she was charged with driving while license suspended in a matter filed in the 53rd District Court.
Based upon the respondent’s admissions, the panel found that, as set forth in count 1 of Formal Complaint 22-3-GA, the respondent failed to deposit and maintain the tax refund check into a client trust account until her dispute over fees with her client was resolved in violation of MRPC 1.15(c); failed to hold the property of her client or third persons in connection with a representation separate from her own property by not depositing the check into a client trust account but rather commingling the funds by depositing them into her personal checking account in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); 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 was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
As set forth in count 2 of Formal Complaint 22-3-GA, the panel found that the respondent engaged in a conflict of interest by representing two adverse parties without proper consultation for consent in violation of MRPC 1.7; engaged in a conflict of interest by providing financial assistance to a client in violation of MRPC 1.8(e); engaged in conduct that was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
As set forth in count 3 of Formal Complaint 22-3-GA, the panel found that the respondent engaged in incompetent representation in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); neglected a legal matter entrusted to her in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); made false statements of material fact to a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1); failed to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with a legally proper discovery request by opposing party in violation of MRPC 3.4(d); made false statements of material fact to the opposing attorney in violation of MRPC 4.1; 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 vi of MRPC 8.4(b); engaged in conduct that was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
As set forth in count 4 of Formal Complaint 22-3-GA, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to her in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of her matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4; failed to protect her client’s legal interests by refunding unearned fees or providing the client with the client file in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); 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 was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to oblo quy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
As set forth in count 5 of Formal Complaint 22-3-GA, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to her in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the true status of the matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(c); charged and attempted to collect a clearly excessive fee on work that was not performed in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); refused to withdraw after being discharged in violation of MRPC 1.16(a)(3); failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interest of her client in violation of MRPC 3.2; 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 was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
As set forth in count 6 of Formal Complaint 22-3-GA, the panel found that the respondent violated a criminal law in violation of MCR 9.104(5); knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal by driving her car to court while her license was suspended in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); 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 was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); and engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2). As set forth in count 1 of Formal Complaint 22-93-GA, the panel found that the respondent engaged in incompetent representation in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); neglected a legal matter entrusted to her in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her clients in violation of MRPC 1.3; knowingly disobeyed obligations under the rules of a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); engaged in conduct that was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
As set forth in count 2 of Formal Complaint 22-93-GA, the panel found that the respondent engaged in incompetent representation in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); neglected a legal matter entrusted to her in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of the matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); engaged in undignified or discourteous conduct toward the tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.5(d); 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 was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
The hearing panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent filed a timely petition for review and after conducting review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board affirmed the panel’s order of disbarment. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,070.88.
1. On October 25, 2022, an order of suspension pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(1) [failure to appear], was entered by the panel suspending respondent’s license, effective November 1, 2022, and until further order of the panel or the Board. On November 22, 2022, the panel granted respondent’s emergency petition for reinstatement and set aside the October 25, 2022, order. (See Notice Vacating Interim Suspension and Notice of Reinstatement, issued November 22, 2022.) On December 6, 2022, an order of interim suspension was re-entered, suspending respondent’s license, effective December 13, 2022. (See notice of interim suspension, issued December 14, 2022.)
AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF COSTS
Clarice Y. Williams, P33415, Southfield, effective April 11, 2024.
On July 25, 2023, an Order of Reprimand (By Consent) was issued by Tri-County Hearing Panel #58 in Grievance Administrator v. Clarice Y. Williams, 23-62-GA. Pursuant to that order, the respondent was ordered to pay $789.20 in assessed costs on or before August 16, 2023. The respondent’s request for a payment plan to pay the assessed costs in installments was granted in an order issued on August 16, 2023. The plan was vacated on April 3, 2024, when the respondent defaulted on her installment payments and a certification of nonpayment of costs was issued in accordance with MCR 9.128(C).
In accordance with MCR 9.128(D), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michi gan was automatically suspended effective April 11, 2024. The suspension will remain in effect until the costs have been paid or the Attorney Discipline Board approves a suitable plan for payment and the respondent complies with MCR 9.119 and 9.123(A).
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
Notice is given that David Chipman Venie (P68087) has filed a petition with the Michigan Supreme Court, the Attorney Discipline Board, and the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking reinstatement as a member of the State Bar and restoration of his license to practice law in accordance with MCR 9.124(A). In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of David Chipman Venie, ADB Case No. 24-36-RP.
Effective Aug. 18, 2017, the petitioner was disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan. The Michigan action was a reciprocal proceeding filed under MCR 9.120(C) following an order of permanent disbarment in New Mexico in a case captioned In re D. Chipman Venie, No. S-1-SC-36175 (NM 2017). The New Mexico Supreme Court entered an order on Jan. 18, 2017, permanently disbarring the petitioner from practicing in New Mexico effective immediately, ordering him to pay restitution in the amount of $89,170.70, enjoining him from suing two clients, and ordering him to pay costs.
The petitioner was permanently disbarred from the practice of law in New Mexico for conduct that occurred in connection with representation of three clients. In one matter, the petitioner counseled his client to bribe witnesses and offered to deliver the bribery payment to the witnesses. He improperly revealed confidential information of a client; filed civil lawsuits that had no reasonable basis in law or fact; made false statements of fact to the tribunal; used evidence the lawyer knew was false; knowingly made false statement of material fact in a disciplinary matter; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. In the second matter, the petitioner converted money that belonged to his client’s parents and was provided solely for the purpose of posting bond. In the third matter, the petitioner filed a prohibited nonconsensual lien against a client’s mother’s property for a fee to which he was not entitled. The hearing panel also concluded that the petitioner demanded the fee in retaliation for the client filing a disciplinary complaint. The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the reinstatement petition to Tri-County Hearing Panel #21. A hearing is scheduled for July 29, 2024, commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the Attorney Discipline Board, 333 W. Fort Street, Suite 1700, Detroit, Michigan 48226.
Any interested person may appear at the hearing and request to be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement.
Any person having information bearing on the petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:
Sarah C. Lindsey General Counsel Attorney Grievance Commission 755 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 2100, Troy MI 48084, (313) 961-6585
Requirements of the Petitioner
The petitioner is required to establish by clear and convincing evidence the following:
1. He desires in good faith to be restored to the privilege to practice law in this state;
2. The term of the revocation of his license has elapsed;
3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his revocation;
4. He has complied fully with the terms of the order of discipline;
5. His conduct since the order of discipline has been exemplary and above reproach;
6. He has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the Bar and will conduct himself in conformity with those standards;
7. He can safely be recommended to the public, the courts, and the legal profession as a person fit to be consulted by others and represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and, in general, to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the court;
8. That, if he has been out of the practice of law for three years or more, he has been recertified by the Board of Law Examiners; and,
9. He has reimbursed or agreed to reimburse the Client Protection Fund any money paid from the fund as a result of his conduct. Failure to fully reimburse as agreed is ground for vacating an order of reinstatement.
In the interest of maintaining the high standards imposed upon the legal profession as conditions for the privilege to practice law in this state, and of protecting the public, the judiciary, and the legal profession against conduct contrary to such standards, the petitioner will be required to establish his eligibility for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence.