DISBARMENT

Lenore LuAnn Albert, P85667, Laguna Beach, California. Disbarment, effective Nov. 22, 2024.

The grievance administrator filed a Notice of Filing of Reciprocal Discipline that attached a certified copy of an order from the Supreme Court of California dated June 17, 2024, disbarring the respondent from the practice of law in California. In re Lenore LuAnn Albert on Discipline, Case No. S284532. An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the board on July 30, 2024, ordering the parties to, within 21 days from service of the order, inform the board in writing (i) of any objection to the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan based on the grounds set forth in MCR 9.120(C)(1) and (ii) whether a hearing was requested. The respondent filed a motion to expand the record and an objection on Aug. 14, 2024, and requested a hearing. The matter was assigned to Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #4 for disposition.

The panel denied the respondent’s motion to expand the record and request for a hearing, finding that the respondent was afforded due process in the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the California State Bar and that it would not be clearly inappropriate to impose comparable discipline in Michigan. On Oct. 31, 2024, the panel issued an order disbarring the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan, effective Nov. 22, 2024. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,525.32.

INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)

Elizabeth Dallam Ayoub, P65413, Holland. Interim suspension, effective Nov. 14, 2024.

The respondent failed to appear for a Nov. 1, 2024, hearing and satisfactory proofs were entered into the record that she possessed actual notice of the proceedings. As a result, Muskegon County Hearing Panel #1 issued an Order of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) [Failure to Appear], effective Nov. 14, 2024, and until further order of the panel or the board.

SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)

R. Scott A. Baker, P 62511, Onsted. Two years, effective Dec. 1, 2024.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of a Two-Year Suspension with Condition in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #2.

The stipulation contained the respondent’s no contest plea to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct as set forth in the notice of filing of judgment of conviction and the formal complaint. Specifically, the formal complaint alleged that the respondent committed misconduct during his representation of two separate clients seeking assistance in their divorce matters, including showing one client orders purportedly issued by Lenawee County Circuit Court that were in fact created, stamped, and signed by the respondent. The notice of filing of judgment of conviction sets forth that the respondent was convicted by guilty plea of willful neglect of duty—public officer, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 740.478, in People v. Robert Scott Allen Baker, 2A District Court, Case No. 222067.

Based on the respondent’s no contest plea and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [counts 1 and 2]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 [counts 1 and 2]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [counts 1 and 2]; failed to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of a client in violation of MRPC 3.2 [count 2]; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 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 2]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) [counts 1 and 2]; engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach as proscribed by MCR 9.104(2) [counts 1 and 2]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1 and 2]; and 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) [judgment of conviction].

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for two years, effective Dec. 1, 2024, as agreed to by the parties and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $950.76.

DISBARMENT

Marco M. Bisbikis, P79478, Novi. Disbarment, effective Nov. 20, 2024.¹

The respondent was convicted by jury trial on May 23, 2024, 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 constituted violations of MCL 750.316, MCL 750.227b, and MCL 750.83, all felony offenses, in a matter titled People v. Marco Bisbikis, Oakland County Circuit Court, Case No. 2023-284941-FC. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended effective May 23, 2024, the date of respondent’s felony convictions.

Based on his convictions, Tri-County Hearing Panel #12 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he engaged in conduct that violated criminal laws of the state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615 pursuant to MCR 2.615 in violation of MCR 9.104(5).

The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,861.18.

DISBARMENT (BY CONSENT)

Charles Hua Cui, P65379, Chicago, Illinois. Disbarment, effective Dec. 21, 2023.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Disbarment pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #73. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted on Dec. 21, 2023, by guilty verdict, of one count of bribery involving federal programs in violation of 18 USC § 666(a)(2); one count of false statements to Federal Bureau of Investigation in violation of 18 USC § 1001(a)(2); and three counts of use of interstate commerce to facilitate illegal activity in violation of 18 USC § 1952(a)(3), in a matter titled United States v. Charles Cui, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:19-cr-00322(3).

Based on the stipulation of the parties, 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) 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).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan with good cause existing for the respondent’s disbarment to begin on Dec. 21, 2023, as agreed to by the parties. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $789.08.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Kelly D. Ellsworth, P78595, Saginaw. Reprimand, effective Nov. 15, 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 Genesee County Hearing Panel #3.

The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted by guilty plea of operating a motor vehicle when visibly impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC 257.6253-A in People of the State of Michigan v. Kelly Daniel Ellsworth, 70th District Court, Case No. 22-001104-OD, as set forth in a notice of filing of judgment of conviction by the grievance administrator.

Based on the respondent’s conviction, admission, and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he engaged in conduct involving 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 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 $761.54.

SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Kiana E. Franulic, P73015, Southfield. Suspension, 30 days, effective Nov. 15, 2024.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of 30-Day Suspension with Conditions 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 admission to being hired by a client to represent her in a medical malpractice and wrongful death suit which the respondent later neglected but falsely claimed to her client that she was working on the case long after the suit had been dismissed by the court.

Based on the respondent’s admissions and the amended stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer 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 the client reasonably informed about the status of her matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a), 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); knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.4(c), 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 engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4).

In accordance with the amended stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days, effective Nov. 15, 2024, as agreed to by the parties, and that the respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $759.92.

SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION

Catherine A. Jacobs, P32996, Lakeview. Suspension, 179 days, effective Dec. 4, 2024.

Based on the evidence presented at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, Kent County Hearing Panel #5 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct while filing petitions for appointment of a temporary or permanent guardian for incapacitated individuals on behalf of Sparrow Hospital as alleged in four of the counts set forth in a five-count amended formal complaint filed by the grievance administrator. Count 3 of the amended formal complaint was dismissed when the panel granted the respondent’s motion for summary disposition.

Specifically, with regard to count 1 of the amended complaint, the panel found that the respondent engaged in a conflict of interest by representing a client when the representation was materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to a third person and the lawyer could not reasonably believe a statutorily prohibited conflict of interest would not adversely affect the representation and the client could not consent to violating a statutorily prohibited conflict of interest (MCL 700.5313(1)) in violation of MRPC 1.7(b)(1) and (2). The panel also found that the respondent knowingly made a false statement of material fact to a tribunal or failed to correct a false statement of material fact previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1).

With regard to count 2 of the amended complaint, the panel found that the respondent 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); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).

With regard to count 4 of the amended complaint, the panel found that the respondent knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a third person in violation of MRPC 4.1; 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); 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).

With regard to count 5 of the amended complaint, the panel found that the respondent acted as a fiduciary for a client when the representation was materially limited by the lawyer’s own interest and the lawyer could not reasonably believe a statutorily prohibited conflict of interest would not adversely affect the representation and the client could not consent to violating a statutorily prohibited conflict of interest (MCL 700.5421(2)(b)) in violation of MRPC 1.7(b)(1) and (2); 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).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 180 days and that she be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,908.87.

The respondent timely filed a petition for review and a petition for stay of the effective date of the hearing panel’s order of suspension with condition. On Feb. 22, 2024, the board entered an order granting the respondent’s petition for stay, thereby staying the hearing panel’s order of suspension with condition pending completion of the review proceedings before the board.

After conducting review proceedings according to MCR 9.118, the board reduced the discipline imposed by the hearing panel from a 180-day suspension to a 179-day suspension of the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan and affirmed the condition imposed by the hearing panel.

SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)

John A. Janiszewski, P74400, Detroit. Suspension, 90 days, effective Dec. 15, 2024.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Suspension with Condition which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #18. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted of driving while visibly impaired, a misdemeanor, and of disorderly person, a misdemeanor, on July 28, 2022, in the matter People v. John A. Janiszewski, 56A District Court, Case No. 22-0129-SM, and that he violated his probation by failing to report to his probation officer and testing positive for alcohol. The stipulation also contained the respondent’s no contest plea to the factual allegations in paragraphs 13-20 and 22 regarding a subsequent arrest for operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense, and the remaining grounds for discipline as set forth in the formal complaint.

Based on the respondent’s admissions, no contest plea, and stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal contrary to 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 is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); 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); engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4); and engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law of a state contrary to MCR 9.104(5).

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 90 days, effective Dec. 15, 2024, as agreed to by the parties, and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,174.84.

AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION

Justin Blair Miller, P66930, Harrison Township. Effective Oct. 8, 2024.

On Oct. 8, 2024, the respondent was convicted by guilty plea of Operating While Intoxicated—Third Offense, a felony and violation of MCL 257.625(1), in State of Michigan v. Justin Miller, 57th Circuit Court Case No. 2024-0000005679-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).

AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF COSTS

Carl C. Silver, P26501, Ossineke. Effective Nov. 13, 2024.

On Oct. 1, 2024, an Order of Reprimand with Conditions was issued by Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #4 in Grievance Administrator v. Carl C. Silver, 24-20-JC. Pursuant to that order, the respondent was ordered to pay $1,874.18 in assessed costs on or before Oct. 23, 2024. The respondent failed to do so and a certification of nonpayment of costs was issued on Nov. 5, 2024, in accordance with MCR 9.128(C).

In accordance with MCR 9.128(D), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended, effective Nov. 13, 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 until the respondent complies with MCR 9.119 and 9.123(A).

REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS

Kent Alan Lee Wood II, P70596, Lansing. Reprimand, effective Nov. 6, 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 Ingham County Hearing Panel #4. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint, namely that the respondent committed professional misconduct by paying referral fees to nonlawyers and otherwise sharing legal fees with nonlawyers.

Based upon the respondent’s admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent entered into an agreement for, charged, and/or collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); shared legal fees with a nonlawyer in violation of MRPC 5.4(a); gave something of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services in violation of MRPC 7.2(c); 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 and subject to certain conditions. Costs were assessed in the amount of $761.54.