SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)
Scott R. Baker, P69106, Novi. Suspension, 120 days, effective Oct. 19, 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 Tri-County Hearing Panel #67. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admissions to all factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-60 and his no-contest plea to the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in paragraph 61 of the formal complaint filed by the grievance administrator, specifically, that the respondent committed professional misconduct by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a defendant while acting as a prosecuting attorney for the City of Novi.
Based upon the respondent’s admission, no contest plea, and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent engaged in a conflict of interest in violation of MRPC 1.7(b); failed to provide fairness to opposing party in violation of MRPC 3.4; communicated with an opposing party represented by counsel without authorization in violation of MRPC 4.2; provided a false statement within his answer to a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(6) and MRPC 8.1(a)(1); 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 proper administration of justice in violation of 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 hearing panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 120 days and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $920.16.
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
Notice is given that Jarrod A. Barron, P55353, has filed a petition for reinstatement in the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan and with the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking reinstatement as a member of the bar of this state and restoration of his license to practice law.
On May 22, 2014, the petitioner and the grievance administrator filed a stipulation for a 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 on the petitioner’s no contest plea, the hearing panel found that the petitioner withdrew advanced legal fees and expenses from a client trust account without the fees having been earned in violation of MRPC 1.15(g); knowingly made a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter in violation of MRPC 8.1(a); 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); made knowing misrepresentations of facts or circumstances surrounding a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(6); and failed to file an answer to a request for investigation which fully and fairly discloses all facts and circumstances in violation of MCR 9.113. The panel also found that the petitioner violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (c) and MCR 9.104(1)-(4).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the petitioner be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan effective Aug. 13, 2014, and pay restitution in the aggregate amount of $7,490. Costs were assessed in the amount of $799.37.
Pursuant to MCR 9.123(B), the petitioner is required to establish the following by clear and convincing evidence:
1. He desires in good faith to be restored to the privilege of practicing law in Michigan;
2. The term of the suspension ordered has elapsed or five years have elapsed since his disbarment or resignation;
3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his suspension or disbarment;
4. He has complied fully with 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. Taking into account all of the attorney’s past conduct, including the nature of the misconduct that led to the revocation or suspension, he nevertheless can safely be recommended to the public, the courts, and the legal profession as a person fit to be consulted by others and to 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. He is in compliance with the requirements of subrule (C), if applicable; and,
9. He has reimbursed the client security fund of the State Bar of Michigan or has agreed to an arrangement to reimburse the fund for any money paid as a result of his conduct.
A Zoom hearing is scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 16, 2025, at 10 a.m. with the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board.
Any interested person may appear at such hearing and be heard in support of or in opposition to said petition for reinstatement. Any person having information bearing on the petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:
Caitlin O. Fleming, Associate Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
PNC Center
755 W. Big Beaver, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48226
(313) 961-6585
SUSPENSION
Carl L. Collins III, P55982, Southfield. Suspension, three years, effective Nov. 16, 2022.
The respondent was convicted by a federal jury of five counts of making a false tax return, a felony, in violation of 26 USC § 7602(1) in the matter titled United States v. Carl L. Collins III, Federal District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 19-cr-20685. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended, effective Nov. 16, 2022, the date of the respondent’s conviction.
Based on the respondent’s conviction, Tri-County Hearing Panel #60 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) and engaged in conduct involving a 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 ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for three years, effective Nov. 16, 2022. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,469.27.
REINSTATEMENT
On Sept. 6, 2024, Tri-County Hearing Panel #63 entered an Order of Suspension (By Consent) in this matter, suspending the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 30 days, effective Sept. 15, 2024, and ordering him to pay costs in the amount of $750. On Oct. 8, 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 grievance administrator did not file an objection to the respondent’s affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) and the board being otherwise advised;
NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that the respondent, Timothy P. Dugan, P41135, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Oct. 17, 2024.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
John A. Engman, P13198, Grand Rapids. Reprimand, effective Oct. 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 Kent County Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission to the factual allegations and his no contest plea to the allegations of professional misconduct as set forth in the formal complaint, namely that the respondent committed professional misconduct by misusing his IOLTA. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the respondent’s IOLTA was overdrawn by several transactions that were business expenses and should have been paid out of his business account. The respondent admitted that all funds in his IOLTA were client funds and that upon learning of the overdrafts, he deposited funds from his general business account into his IOLTA to cover the insufficient funds.
Based upon the respondent’s admission, no contest plea, and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent 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); failed to safeguard client funds in his IOLTA in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); deposited funds into his IOLTA in an amount in excess of an amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees in violation of MRPC 1.15(f); engaged in conduct that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); and engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession 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. Costs were assessed in the amount of $909.92.
SUSPENSION (PENDING REVIEW)
Ernest Friedman, P26642, Farmington Hills. Suspension, 180 days, effective Oct. 18, 2024.
Based on the evidence presented to Tri-County Hearing Panel #57 at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct in two separate and unrelated counts, one pertaining to management of an IOLTA and the other relating to the respondent’s suspension for misconduct found in Grievance Administrator v. Ernest Friedman, 18-37-GA.
Specifically, the panel found that the respondent failed to promptly pay or deliver any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person and, upon request by the client or third person, promptly render a full accounting regarding such property in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) [count 1]; failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from his own property in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) [count 1]; deposited funds into the IOLTA in an amount in excess of the amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees in violation of MRPC 1.15(f) [count 1]; failed to notify all active clients in writing by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, of his suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(A) [count 2]; failed to file with the tribunal and all parties a notice of disqualification from the practice of law in violation of MCR 9.119(B) [count 2]; and filed a false reinstatement affidavit in violation of MCR 9.123(A) [count 2]. The panel also found the respondent’s conduct to have violated MCR 9.104(1) [count 1]; MCR 9.104(2) [counts 1-2]; MCR 9.104(3) [count 2]; MCR 9.104(4) [counts 1-2]; MRPC 8.4(a) [counts 1-2]; and MRPC 8.4(c) [count 2].
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days. Costs were assessed by the panel in the amount of $3,409.59.
On Oct. 10, 2024, the respondent timely filed a petition for review pursuant to MCR 9.118 and a petition for stay pursuant to MCR 9.115(K). The respondent’s petition for a stay was denied by the board on Oct. 17, 2024. The respondent’s petition for review is currently pending before the board.
REPRIMAND
Zachary Hallman, P78327, Dearborn. Reprimand, effective Oct. 23, 2024.
A hearing was held on the grievance administrator’s motion for order to show cause regarding why discipline should not be increased for the respondent’s failure to comply with an order of 45-Day Suspension (By Consent) issued by Tri-County Hearing Panel #1. The hearing panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he was not in complete compliance with the order of discipline previously entered.
Specifically, the panel found that the respondent’s participation in a phone call with the court while his license to practice law was suspended and building signage and website content holding himself out as an attorney after his suspension constituted violations of MCR 9.119(E)(3) and (4). The panel also found that the respondent provided false statements in his affidavit in violation of MCR 9.123(A); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional misconduct in violation of MCR 9.104(4); and violated an order of discipline in violation of MCR 9.104(9). On Oct. 1, 2024, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded, effective Oct. 23, 2024. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,196.85.
AMENDED1 ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
On July 31, 2024, Tri-County Hearing Panel #6 entered an Order of Suspension and Restitution (By Consent) suspending the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 60 days, effective Aug. 22, 2024. On Oct. 16, 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. Counsel for the grievance administrator did not file an objection within seven days pursuant to MCR 9.123(A), and the board being otherwise advised;
NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that the respondent, George W. Hyde, P46885, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Oct. 28, 2024.
1. Amended to reflect correct Case No. 23-60-GA.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION
Brandon John Janssen, P78132, Detroit. Disbarment, effective Oct. 19, 2024.1
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #9 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged by the grievance administrator in a four-count formal complaint. Counts 1-3 related to immigration matters and count 4 involved the respondent’s failure to timely respond to requests for investigation related to the other three counts.
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented by the grievance administrator, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [counts 1-3]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 [counts 1-3]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [counts 1-3]; charged an excessive fee in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) [count 2]; failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination, such as returning unearned fees and client files in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [counts 1 and 3]; made a false statement of fact to a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1) [count 2]; failed to make reasonable efforts to supervise the conduct of a nonlawyer assistant in violation of MRPC 5.3 [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 in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) [count 2]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) [all counts]; and 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 4]. The panel also found the respondent’s conduct to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) [all counts].
The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred and pay restitution in the total amount of $14,095. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,615.11.
1. Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since March 19, 2024. See Notice of Suspension & Restitution with Condition, issued March 20, 2024, in Grievance Administrator v Brandon John Janssen, 23-21-GA.
REINSTATEMENT
On August 13, 2024, Tri-County Hearing Panel #6 entered an Order of Suspension in this matter suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 45 days, effective September 4, 2024. On October 16, 2024, 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. Counsel for the grievance administrator informed the board’s staff via email that the grievance administrator has no objection to the respondent’s affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A); and the board being otherwise advised;
NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Robert Louis Page, P70758, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Oct. 19, 2024.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
John L. Runco, P39251, Birmingham. Suspension, 60 days, effective Oct. 23, 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 Tri-County Hearing Panel #13. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted of two counts of domestic violence, first offense, a misdemeanor, as set forth in the Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction and that his conviction constituted professional misconduct under MCR 9.104(5).
Based on the respondent’s conviction, admission, and the parties’ stipulation, 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 in violation of MCR 9.104(5).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 60 days, effective Oct. 23, 2024. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,071.47.
REPRIMAND (WITH CONDITIONS)
Carl C. Silver, P 26501, Ossineke. Reprimand, effective Oct. 23, 2024.
The grievance administrator filed a Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3) showing that the respondent was convicted by guilty plea of operating while intoxicated, 2nd offense, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.6256(B) in the matter of the People of the State of Michigan v. Carl C. Silver, Case No. 21-0435-FD, 88th District Court-Alpena. Based on the respondent’s conviction, Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #4 found that the respondent engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or a tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615 in violation of MCR 9.104(5).
The panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and imposed conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,874.18.