SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION
Brian T. Dailey, P39945, Grosse Pointe Farms. Suspension, five years, effective June 20, 2024.
The grievance administrator filed a 12-count formal 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, failed to make payments of earned wages owed to his former bookkeeper and his assistant, failed to pay other attorneys for referral fees and their portion of earned attorney fees, and failed to pay court-ordered costs to other attorneys.
Specifically, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [count 6]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 [counts 6, 8, and 10]; failed to promptly comply with a client’s reasonable request for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) and failed to explain a matter to a client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the representation in violation of MRPC 1.4(b) [counts 8 and 10]; charged or collected, or attempted to charge or collect, clearly illegal or excessive fees in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) and MCR 5.313(B) [count 6]; failed to promptly pay or deliver funds that a third person is entitled to receive and failed to promptly render a full accounting regarding such funds in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) [counts 1-3 and 5-11]; failed to hold disputed property separate from the lawyer’s property until the dispute is resolved in violation of MRPC 1.15(c) and 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 2]; asserted a frivolous position in a proceeding in violation of MRPC 3.1 [count 5]; knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) [counts 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 11]; violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) [count 5]; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty and deceit where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) [counts 1-9 and 11]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) [counts 2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the proper administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) [counts 1-2, 4-6, and 8-11]; 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, 4-6, 8-9, and 11]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1 and 3-11]; and failed to answer a request for investigation or complaint in conformity with MCR 9.113 and 9.115(D) in violation of MCR 9.104(7) [count 12].
The hearing panel also determined the grievance administrator failed to establish that the respondent violated the following rules: MRPC 1.3 and MRPC 1.5(a) [count 7]; MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [count 12]; MRPC 8.4(b) [counts 10 and 12]; MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) [counts 3, 7, and 12]; MCR 9.104(2) [counts 3, 7, 10, and 12]; MCR 9.104(3) [count 12]; and MCR 9.104(5) [count 5].
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for a period of five years and that he pay restitution in the total amount of $24,478.85 plus interest. Costs were assessed in the amount of $13,479.86.
The respondent timely filed a petition for review and a motion for stay. In an order dated May 28, 2024, the Attorney Discipline Board granted the respondent’s motion for stay on an interim basis pending further consideration by the board. On June 13, 2024, an order was entered denying the respondent’s motion for stay. The interim stay was dissolved and the hearing panel order of suspension and restitution would be effective June 20, 2024. This matter will be scheduled for a hearing on the petition for review before the Attorney Discipline Board in the near future.
SUSPENSION (WITH CONDITION)
Liza Ann Esqueda, P80588, Northville. Suspension, one year, effective July 23, 2024.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #7 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during her representation of a client in a matter before the 54-A District Court by failing to answer a request for investigation and for failing to appear for a sworn statement although subpoenaed to do so by the grievance administrator.
The respondent did not file an answer to the complaint and her default was entered by the grievance administrator on Nov. 1, 2023. Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (count 1); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 (count 1); unlawfully obstructed another party’s access to evidence, unlawfully altered, destroyed, or concealed a document or other material having potential evidentiary value, or counseled or assisted another person to do any such act in violation of MRPC 3.4(a) (count 1); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a) (count 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) (counts 1-2); and failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A)-(B)(2) in violation of MCR 9.104(7) (count 2). The panel also found the respondent to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for one year effective July 23, 2024, and that she be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,110.09.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Jeffrey J. Fleury, P53884, Rochester Hills. Reprimand, effective July 18, 2024.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #71. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted on Sept. 22, 2023, by guilty plea, of operating a motor vehicle while visibly impaired in violation of MCL 257.625(3), a misdemeanor, in a matter titled State of Michigan v. Jeffrey J. Fleury, 44th District Court Case No. 23-00833-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 $759.68.
NOTICE VACATING INTERIM SUSPENSION
Glenn Phillip Franklin, P68263, Southfield. Effective July 16, 2024.
On July 16, 2024, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an order (1) granting defendants’ motions for judgment of acquittal (ECF Nos. 533, 537) and (2) terminating defendants’ motions for new trial (ECF Nos. 535, 538) as moot; and a judgment of acquittal in the matter titled United States of America v. John Angelo and Glenn Phillip Franklin III, Case No. 20-cr-20599, acquitting the respondent of the felony offense for which he was earlier convicted. Upon conviction, the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended. See Notice of Automatic Interim Suspension dated Dec. 18, 2023.
In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the Attorney Discipline Board must set aside an attorney’s automatic suspension upon conviction of a felony if that conviction is subsequently vacated, reversed, or otherwise set aside for any reason by the trial court or an appellate court. Pursuant to that rule, the board is hereby vacating the automatic interim suspension effective July 16, 2024, the date of the United States District Court’s order.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Fredric R. Gumbinner, P40279, Washington, D.C. Effective Nov. 20, 2023.
On Nov. 20, 2023, the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds in violation of 18 USC § 666(a)(2), a felony, in United States v. Fredric R. Gumbinner, United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division, Case No. 3:23CR00011-003. Upon the acceptance of the respondent’s guilty plea 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).
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Teriann Marie Schmidt, P67497, Harrison Township. Suspension, 45 days, effective July 1, 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 she was convicted by guilty plea of operating while intoxicated (second offense), a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257.6256B in People v. Teriann Schmidt, Macomb County Circuit Court Case 22-003056-FH. The stipulation also contained the respondent’s admissions to the allegations in the formal complaint that she failed to report her conviction as required by MCR 9.120(A) and (B). 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 prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); MCR 9.120(A) and (B); and engaged in conduct 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 45 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 $1,022.72.
SUSPENSION (WITH CONDITIONS)
Dean E. Sheldon III, P58967, Traverse City. Suspension, 365 days, effective July 25, 2024.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Grand Traverse County Hearing Panel #1 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of three separate clients and when he separately exhibited troubling behavior to fellow litigants and the tribunal.
The respondent did not file an answer to the complaint and his default was entered by the grievance administrator on March 6, 2024. Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing panel found that the respondent neglected a matter in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [counts 1-3]; improperly limited the scope of a representation when the limitation was not reasonable under the circumstances and the client did not give informed consent in violation of MRPC 1.2(b) [count 1]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 [counts 1-3]; 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) [counts 1-3]; failed to withdraw from the representation of a client when the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impaired the lawyer’s ability to represent the client in violation of MRPC 1.16(a)(2) [all counts]; 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)(1) [counts 1-3]; knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) [counts 1-3]; sought to influence a judge or other official by means prohibited by law in violation of MRPC 3.5(a) [counts 1 and 4]; communicated ex parte with a judge or other official concerning a pending matter without being authorized to do so by law or court order in violation of MRPC 3.5(b) [counts 1 and 4]; engaged in undignified or discourteous conduct toward the tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.5(d) [count 1]; failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process in violation of MRPC 6.5(a) [counts 1, 3, and 4]; engaged in conduct that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) [all counts]; 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]; engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2) [all counts]; and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [all counts].
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 365 days effective July 25, 2024, and that he is subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,838.83.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Jeffrey A. Slocombe, P44704, Traverse City. Reprimand, effective July 20, 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 Emmet County Hearing Panel #2. The stipulation contained the respondent’s no contest plea to the factual allegations and the grounds for discipline set forth in the formal complaint, namely that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in a criminal action by failing to file an appearance or a timely substitution of counsel prior to a hearing and failing to appear at the hearing.
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 neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); 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. Discipline in this case was also deemed to include restitution, which was paid by the respondent prior to the filing of the stipulation for consent order of discipline. Costs were assessed in the amount of $759.73.
SUSPENSION
Robert Louis Page, P70758, Highland Park. Suspension, 45 days, effective Sept. 4, 2024.
Based on the evidence presented at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #6 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he participated in discussions and activities that culminated with him transporting documents purportedly impregnated with a prohibited substance into a Michigan correctional facility as set forth in a one-count formal complaint filed by the grievance administrator.
Specifically, the hearing panel found that the respondent engaged in conduct that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MCR 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of 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 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 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’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 45 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,105.73.
REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO MCR 9.123(A)
On July 1, 2024, Tri-County Hearing Panel #104 entered an Order of Suspension with Conditions (By Consent) suspending the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 45 days, effective July 1, 2024. On Aug. 12, 2024, the respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) attesting that she 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, Teriann Marie Schmidt, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Aug. 15, 2024.