SUSPENSION WITH RESTITUTION AND CONDITION

Jason Robert Baker, P72645, Grand Rapids. Suspension, three years, effective Aug. 21, 2024.¹

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Kent County Hearing Panel #2 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of four different clients in separate matters and by failing to answer four requests for investigation.

The respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint and his default was entered by the grievance administrator on Oct. 27, 2023. After failing to appear at a scheduled prehearing conference, the panel entered an Order of Interim Suspension pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1).

Based on the respondent’s default and evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing panel found that the respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (counts 1, 3, 5, and 7); failed to seek the lawful objective of clients through reasonable available means in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) (counts 1, 3, 5, and 7); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 (counts 1, 3, 5, and 7); failed to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and failed to comply with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (counts 1, 3, 5, and 7); failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) and MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2) (counts 2, 4, 6, and 8); 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 5 and 7); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) (all counts); 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); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (counts 1, 3, 5, and 7); knowingly violated the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) (counts 1, 3, 5, and 7); and engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) (counts 2, 4, 6, and 8).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for three years, that he pay restitution in the total amount of $5,500, and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,689.32.

1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Feb. 6, 2024. See Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), dated Feb. 21, 2024.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Christopher Shea Berry, P68580, Muskegon. Reprimand, effective Aug. 7, 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 Muskegon County Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained the respondent’s no-contest plea to the factual allegations set forth in the formal complaint and the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in paragraphs 47(a) and (b), namely that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he disclosed information about a jury verdict respondent obtained contrary to the wishes of his client, who wanted to avoid publicity regarding the case and trial. The stipulation also contained the parties’ agreement to dismiss the remaining allegations of professional misconduct.

Based upon the respondent’s no-contest plea as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and/or failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) and revealed a confidence or secret of a client in violation of MRPC 1.6.

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,242.65.

REINSTATEMENT

On Jan. 31, 2024, Grand Traverse County Hearing Panel #1 entered an Order of Suspension with Conditions (By Consent) in this matter, suspending the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 179 days, effective Jan. 31, 2024, and ordering him to comply with certain conditions and pay costs in the amount of $837.82.

On Feb. 8, 2024, the respondent paid his costs and on July 23, 2024, filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) attesting that he had fully complied with the 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, W. Dane Carey, P79898, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective July 29, 2024.

REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO MCR 9.123(A)

Stephanie A. Carson, P57096, Detroit. Reinstated, effective Aug. 27, 2024.

On May 8, 2024, the Attorney Discipline Board issued an Order Reducing Suspension from 180 Days to 60 Days and Affirming Condition, suspending the respondent’s license to practice law effective June 6, 2024. On Aug. 5, 2024, the respondent filed an affidavit of compliance as required by MCR 9.123(A). The grievance administrator filed an objection to the respondent’s reinstatement on Aug. 13, 2024. The board denied the objection and reinstated the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan effective Aug. 27, 2024.

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION

Edward M. Czuprynski, P34114, Bay City. Suspension, three years and one day, effective Sept. 12, 2024.

Based on the evidence presented to Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #3 at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct in multiple matters in which the respondent met with clients and improperly accepted retainer payments while suspended from the practice of law, held himself out as an attorney, practiced law while suspended, and failed to comply with prior orders of discipline.

The respondent entered no contest pleas to the allegations and charges in counts 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the formal complaint. Based upon the no contest pleas and the evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing panel found that the respondent failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply with reasonable request for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (counts 1, 4, and 5); failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation in an IOLTA or non-IOLTA account and separate from the lawyer’s own property in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) (counts 1, 2, 4, and 5); failed to address client’s request upon the termination of representation in violation of MRPC 1.16 (counts 1 and 5); failed to timely refund an unearned fee, or portion thereof, to which the client is entitled in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (counts 1, 2, and 5); engaged in the practice of law while not licensed to do so in violation of MRPC 5.5(a) (counts 1, 2, 4, and 5)]; kept an active website identifying himself as an active attorney after being suspended in violation of MRPC 7.1(a) (count 6); failed to cooperate with an investigation of the Attorney Grievance Commission in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (count 6); engaged in conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) (counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 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 1, 2, 4, and 5); 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, 5, and 6); engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6); engaged in conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MCR 9.104(4) (counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6); engaged in conduct in violation of an order of discipline in violation of MCR 9.104(9) (count 6); failed to notify a client of suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(A) (counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6); failed to file affidavits of compliance with the Attorney Discipline Board and Attorney Grievance Commission in violation of MCR 9.119(C) (count 6); engaged in the practice of law in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1) (counts 1, 2, 4, and 5); had contact with clients in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(2) (counts 1, 2, 4, and 5); held himself out as an attorney in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(4) (counts 1, 2, and 5); and failed to notify client of suspension in violation of MCR 9.123 (count 5). Count 3 was dismissed by the hearing panel.

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for three years and one day and pay restitution in the total amount of $27,650. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,411.98.

SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)

Timothy P. Dugan, P41135, Bloomfield Hills. Suspension, 30 days, effective Sept. 15, 2024.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline and, subsequently, an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, amending only the effective date of the discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #63. The respondent pled no contest to the factual allegations and grounds for discipline set forth in the two-count formal complaint, namely that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in a civil matter.

Based on the respondent’s no contest pleas and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [counts 1-2]; failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [counts 1-2]; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of a 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]; engaged in conduct 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]; and engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-2].

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 30 days, effective Sept. 15, 2024. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.

SUSPENSION

Mark D. Goldman, P42697, Scottsdale, Arizona. Suspension, three years, effective Aug. 14, 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 April 11, 2024, for a period of three years in a matter titled In the Matter of a Suspended Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Mark D. Goldman, Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Arizona Supreme Court, Case No. PDJ 2024-9008.

An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the board and served on the parties on May 15, 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 July 16, 2024, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for three years. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,510.16.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Jeffery T. Hall, P67131, Saline, 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 Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #4.

The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted on July 12, 2023, by guilty plea, of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Visibly Impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257.625(3)(A), in a matter titled The People of Ypsilanti Township v. Jeffery Thomas Hall, 14B District Court, Case No. 23T-00275-OD, and that this conviction constitutes professional misconduct.

Based on the respondent’s conviction, admissions, 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 $778.40.

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)

George W. Hyde, P46885, Marquette. Suspension, 60 days, effective Aug. 22, 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 factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 29, 41, and 46 and the allegations of professional misconduct contained in subparagraphs 47(d), (f), (g), (k), and (l) of count 1 of the formal complaint were dismissed. Count 2 of the formal complaint was dismissed in its entirety. Paragraphs 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 26, 28, 30, and 40 in the formal complaint were amended as provided in the stipulation. The respondent pled no contest 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 a client in a civil matter.

Based upon the respondent’s no contest plea and the stipulation of the parties, Upper Peninsula Hearing Panel #2 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 a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; 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); failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client in violation of MRPC 3.2; having direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer, failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer in violation of MRPC 5.3(b); 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); and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 60 days, effective Aug. 22, 2024, and that the respondent pay restitution totaling $2,085, 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 $929.

REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Anthony E. Jacobs, P52742, Washington. Reprimand, effective Aug. 21, 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 that, as set forth in Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction, he was convicted by guilty plea on Nov. 7, 2023,¹ of two counts of Controlled Substance Use, misdemeanor offenses, in violation of MCL 333.7404(2)(A) in People v. Anthony Essa Jacobs, 16th Circuit Court Case No. 2023-000824-FH and on April 4, 2022, of one count of Disorderly Person — Loitering re Illegal Business, a misdemeanor offense, in violation of MCL 333.7404(2)(A) in the matter titled People v. Anthony Essa Jacobs, 16th Circuit Court Case No. 2022-000170-FH. Formal complaint 24-54-GA alleged that the respondent failed to report his convictions as required by MCR 9.120(A) and (B).

Based on the respondent’s conviction, admission, and the parties’ stipulation, 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); failed to provide notice of his convictions in violation of MCR 9.120(A) and (B); and violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $861.36.1

1. The respondent was actually sentenced on Nov. 7, 2023. The date of his convictions was June 21, 2023. See 16th Circuit Court Register of Actions.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Richard L. Kent, P65494, Eastpointe. Reprimand, effective Aug. 14, 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 Tri-County Hearing Panel #102. The stipulation contained the parties’ agreement to set aside the default previously entered and dismiss the allegations of professional misconduct contained in paragraph 27(a), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i) of the formal complaint. The stipulation also contained the respondent’s plea of no contest to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the remaining paragraphs the formal complaint, namely that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in an immigration matter by failing to file asylum applications for his client’s five minor children. The stipulation further acknowledged that the respondent had issued a refund to the client in the amount of $2,000.

Based upon the respondent’s no contest pleas and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed regarding the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); and engaged in conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and 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 $768.61.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Shanice Gabrielle Moore, P83784, Southgate. Reprimand, effective Aug. 23, 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 that as set forth in Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction, she was convicted by guilty plea of operating while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625(1)(a) in the case of People of the City of Detroit v. Shanice Gabrielle Moore, 36th District Court Case Z8073081. The parties’ stipulation also contained admissions by the respondent to specific allegations set forth in Formal Complaint 24-49-GA related to the above criminal matter.

Based on the respondent’s conviction, admission, and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent engaged in conduct that violated a 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 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 violated a criminal law of a state 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 $955.80.

AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION

Danasia Nikhol Neal, P83076, Birmingham. Effective July 22, 2024.

On July 22, 2024, the respondent was convicted by a plea of nolo contendere to one count of Controlled Substance — Delivery/Manufacture (Narcotic or Cocaine) 50 to 449 Grams (Attempt) — MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii), a felony, in State of Michigan v. Danasia Nikhol Neal, Third Circuit Court of Michigan, Case No. 21-007000-01-FH. 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)

Robert S. Strager, P30896, Southfield. Reprimand, effective Aug. 14, 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 Tri-County Hearing Panel #76. The amended stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that, as set forth in the Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction, he was convicted by no contest plea of disturbing the peace under City of Birmingham Ordinance 74-156, a misdemeanor, in People of the City of Birmingham v. Robert Strager, 48th District Court Case No. 21-BC00718. The stipulation also contained the parties’ agreement that the allegations contained in Formal Complaint 24-47-GA relating to the respondent’s failure to report his conviction would be dismissed.

Based on the respondent’s conviction, admission, and stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or 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 $799.44.