AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION

Marco M. Bisbikis, P79478, Novi. Effective May 23, 2024.

On May 23, 2024, the respondent was convicted by guilty verdict of one count of first-degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony firearm, one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder, and one count of assault with intent to commit murder, which constitute violations of MCL 750.316, MCL 750.227b, and MCL 750.83, felony offenses, in People v. Marco Bisbikis, Oakland County Circuit Court, Case No. 2023-284941-FC. Upon the respondent’s conviction and in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended.

Upon the filing of a 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).

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Manda L. Danieleski, P62597, Saginaw. Reprimand, effective May 30, 2024.

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 Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #1. The stipulation contained the respondent’s no contest plea to the factual allegations and grounds for discipline set forth in the formal complaint, namely, that the respondent committed professional misconduct during her representation of a client in an action against the client’s employer by threatening to withdraw as counsel if they did not accept a settlement offered by the employer.

Based upon the stipulation of the parties and the respondent’s no contest plea to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct, the panel found that the respondent failed to abide by a client’s decision whether to accept an offer of settlement in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) and engaged in a conflict of interest related to the lawyer’s own interests in violation of MRPC 1.7(b). The panel also found violations of MCR 9.104(1)-(3).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $770.32.

TRANSFER TO INACTIVE STATUS PURSUANT TO MCR 9.121(B)

Vanessa G. Fluker, P64870, Detroit. Transfer to inactive status, effective June 13, 2024.

The grievance administrator filed a formal complaint which charged that the respondent committed acts of professional misconduct warranting discipline. At a virtual prehearing conference on March 4, 2024, counsel for the grievance administrator indicated that MCR 9.121, which provides for the transfer of a respondent to inactive status when the respondent is incapacitated and unable to practice law, is appropriate here, and orally moved for the panel to consider the application of MCR 9.121. The respondent stated she agreed and consented to an order issued under MCR 9.121 placing her on inactive status.

Tri-County Hearing Panel #13 reported its findings and conclusions as to the circumstances that led to the request for transfer by the grievance administrator and agreed to by the respondent. Based on the respondent’s own admissions and the evidence presented, the panel unanimously determined that the respondent is incapacitated from continuing to practice law as defined in MCR 9.121(B)(3). The panel issued an order transferring the respondent to inactive status pursuant to MCR 9.121(B) for an indefinite period, effective June 13, 2024, to allow the respondent to complete the winding down of her practice, and until further order of a panel or the board in accordance with MCR 9.121(E). The panel further ordered that the allegations of professional misconduct contained in Formal Complaint 24-5-GA are to be held in abeyance pursuant to MCR 9.121(B)(4).

No costs were assessed in this matter.

SUSPENSION (WITH CONDITIONS)

Raymond Guzall III, P60980, Farmington Hills. Suspension, 90 days, effective April 20, 2024.

Based on the evidence presented at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #62 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct, originally arising from a dispute with his former law partner, as set forth in a three-count formal complaint filed by the administrator.

The panel found that as to count 1, the respondent engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4).

As to count 2, the panel found that the respondent knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); engaged in undignified or discourteous conduct toward a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.5(d); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of 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); engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4).

As to count 3, the panel found that the respondent brought a frivolous proceeding and/or controverted asserting a frivolous issue in violation of MRPC 3.1; engaged in undignified or discourteous conduct toward a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.5(d); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of 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); engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 179 days and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. The respondent timely petitioned for review and a stay, and the panel’s order of discipline was stayed pursuant to MCR 9.115(K). After conducting review proceedings according to MCR 9.118, the board reduced the discipline imposed by the hearing panel from a 179-day suspension to a 90-day suspension and modified the condition. On Oct. 20, 2023, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the board’s order pursuant to MCR 9.118(E) which was denied on Nov. 28, 2023.

On Dec. 18, 2023, the respondent filed a timely application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court pursuant to MCR 9.122(A) and a motion to supplement on Feb. 20, 2024. On March 29, 2024, the Court issued an order granting the respondent’s motion to supplement and denying his application for leave to appeal. On April 15, 2024, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 29, 2024, order. On May 29, 2024, the Court denied the respondent’s motion. Costs were assessed in the total amount of $5,672.05.

SUSPENSION

Matthew D. Novello, P63269, Highland. Suspension, 90 days, effective March 11, 2023.¹

A show cause hearing was held in this matter on the grievance administrator’s motion to increase discipline and petition for an order to show cause why discipline should not be increased for the respondent’s failure to comply with Tri-County Hearing Panel #58’s Feb. 17, 2023, Order of Suspension and Restitution, effective March 11, 2023. The hearing panel found that based upon the respondent’s admissions, stipulations, and testimony, the respondent violated an order of discipline in violation of MCR 9.104(9). Specifically, the panel found that the respondent failed to pay restitution as ordered in the Feb. 17, 2023, Order of Suspension and Restitution; failed to remove a website and online listing that indicated he is a practicing attorney with an operating law office in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(4); failed to comply with MCR 9.119(A) by failing to notify all active clients regarding his disqualification; failed to comply with MCR 9.119(B) by failing to inform all tribunals regarding his disqualification; failed to comply with MCR 9.119(C) by failing to file an affidavit of compliance with the Attorney Discipline Board and the Attorney Grievance Commission within 14 days after the effective date of the order; failed to provide proof of payment of costs; and used an email address that implied he is a practicing attorney in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(4).

The hearing panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days, effective March 11, 2023, to run concurrently with the 180-day suspension imposed in Grievance Administrator v. Matthew D. Novello, 22-76-GA. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,360.47.

1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Dec. 8, 2022. Please see Notice of Interim Suspension issued Dec. 12, 2022, Case No. 22-76-GA.

SUSPENSION (WITH CONDITION)

Andrew A. Paterson, P18690, Ann Arbor. Suspension, 100 days, effective May 29, 2024.

The grievance administrator filed a nine-count amended complaint against the respondent. Based on the evidence presented 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 various clients in numerous cases against governmental entities, their employees, and elected government officials.

Specifically, the panel found that respondent brought a proceeding or asserted an issue therein that was frivolous in violation of MRPC 3.1 (counts 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or failed to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer in violation of MRPC 3.3(a) (counts 6, 7, and 9); knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) (counts 6 and 7); in the course of representing a client, knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a third person in violation of MRPC 4.1 (count 9); engaged in conduct involving dishonestly, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) (counts 6, 7, and 9); and engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) (counts 1 and 4-9).

The panel also concluded that the respondent committed the following violations of the Michigan and Federal Court Rules: failed to abide by and violated the requirements of MCR 1.109(E) (counts 4 and 5); filed a motion that was presented for an improper purpose, such as to embarrass or harass the litigants before trial, in violation of MCR 2.302(G)(3) (count 9); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) (counts 1 and 4-9); 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 and 4-9); engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (counts 1 and 4-9); and filed a motion that was presented for an improper purpose in violation of FRCP 11(b) (count 9). The hearing panel also determined that the grievance administrator failed to establish that the respondent violated any rule of professional conduct or court rule as set forth in counts 2 and 3 of the formal complaint, so those counts were dismissed.

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for a period of 100 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. The respondent timely filed a petition for review and a petition for stay, which resulted in an automatic stay of the hearing panel’s order of suspension with conditions, and complainants filed a cross-petition for review. After review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, on April 30, 2024, the board affirmed the hearing panel’s order suspension, affirmed a condition, and vacated a separate condition. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $6,295.

SUSPENSION (WITH CONDITIONS)

John Koby Robertson, P62137, Bloomfield Hills. Suspension, 180 days, effective May 18, 2024.¹

The respondent was convicted by guilty plea of attempted failure to pay child support in violation of MCL 750.92 in the matter titled People v. John Robertson, 44th Circuit Court Case No. 21-026886-FH. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended effective Dec. 3, 2021, the date of the respondent’s conviction.

Based on the respondent’s conviction, Tri- County Hearing Panel #64 found that 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).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,921.04.

1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Dec. 3, 2021. Please see Notice of Automatic Interim Suspension issued Jan. 25, 2022.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Keith W. Turpel, P27605, Kalamazoo. Reprimand, effective May 18, 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 Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained the respondent’s no contest plea to the factual allegations and charges of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint in its entirety, namely that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his tenure as a public defender with the Kalamazoo Public Defender’s Office when he was appointed to represent a defendant in a felony murder and first-degree child abuse matter.

Based upon the respondent’s no contest plea as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent failed to adequately prepare for a case under the circumstances in violation of MRPC 1.1(b); neglected a matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client 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; made false statements of material fact to a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.3(a) (1); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); 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 panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $925.94.

REINSTATEMENT

On July 25, 2023, Tri-County Hearing Panel #58 entered an Order of Reprimand (By Consent) in this matter, reprimanding the respondent and ordering her to pay costs in the amount of $789.20. The board entered an order on Aug. 16, 2023, granting the respondent’s motion to request payment plan. On April 3, 2024, the board vacated the respondent’s payment plan for failure to comply. Pursuant to MCR 9.128, a Notice of Automatic Suspension for Non-Payment of Costs was issued, suspending the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan effective April 11, 2024.

On May 30, 2024, the respondent paid her costs and on June 3, 2024, submitted an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) stating that she has fully complied with all requirements of the Notice of Automatic Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.128. 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, Clarice Y. Williams, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective June 12, 2024.