REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Joshua C. Castmore, P76326, Trenton. Reprimand, effective Jan. 4, 2025.
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 #5. The stipulation contained the respondent’s plea of no contest to both the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint, namely that during his representation of a client who was being sued for breach of contract and foreclosure of a construction lien, the respondent failed to appear for a trial despite being told that the judge intended to proceed with the trial as scheduled. The respondent’s failure to appear resulted in the court granting the plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict and entering a default judgment against the respondent’s client.
Based upon the respondent’s no contest pleas 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 act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; withdrew from representation and failed to appear on behalf of the client without an order of the court in violation of MCR 2.117(C)(2); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); engaged in conduct 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. Costs were assessed in the amount of $910.45
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)
Norman A. Dotson Jr., P84923, Detroit. Reprimand, effective Dec. 18, 2024.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand with Condition 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 the Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction, he was convicted by guilty plea on Sept. 23, 2022, of operating while intoxicated – occupant less than 16, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625(7)(a)(i), in State of Michigan v. Norman Allen Dotson Jr., 44th Judicial District Court Case No. 22-00132. The stipulation also contained the respondent’s admission to the factual and misconduct al legations of Formal Complaint 24-39-GA, which alleged that the respondent was charged in the state of Kansas with domestic battery – physical contact in the matter of City of Wichita v. Norman Dotson Jr., Wichita Municipal Court Case No. 21DV001748, and that he failed to appear at a hearing which resulted in the issuance of a bench warrant in Kansas.
Based on the respondent’s conviction, admissions, 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); 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 exposed 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 be reprimanded and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $771.76.
SUSPENSION
Frederick D. Johnson Jr., P36283, Muskegon. Suspension, 75 days, effective Dec. 26, 2024.
Based on the evidence presented at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, Kent County Hearing Panel #4 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct in his role as the director of the Muskegon Public Defender’s Office and failed to properly supervise both his lawyer and nonlawyer employees by failing to have proper conflicts of interest policies in place and failed to ensure that proper measures were in place to screen for and avoid conflicts of interest as set forth in a formal complaint filed by the grievance administrator.
Specifically, the hearing panel found that the respondent knowingly revealed a confidence or secret of a client, used a confidence or secret of a client to the disadvantage of the client, or used a confidence or secret of a client for the advantage of himself or of a third person without the client’s consent obtained after full disclosure in violation of MRPC 1.6(b); having formerly represented a client in a matter, the respondent thereafter represented a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests were materially adverse to the interests of the former client where the former client did not consent after consultation in violation of MRPC 1.9(a); having formerly represented a client in a matter, the respondent thereafter (1) used or attempted to use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would permit or require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known and/or (2) revealed information relating to the representation except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would permit in violation of MRPC 1.9(c); represented a client or, after representation had commenced, failed to withdraw from the representation of a client where the representation would result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law in violation of MRPC 1.16(a); as a partner of a law firm, the respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 5.1(a); having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer, the respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conformed to the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 5.1(b); as a partner of a law firm, the respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the conduct of nonlawyers in the firm was compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer in violation of MRPC 5.3(a); having direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer, the respondent 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 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); 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 adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 75 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,212.62.
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS
John Lawrence McDonough, P68576, Three Rivers. Suspension, two years, effective Jan. 11, 2025.
The grievance administrator filed a motion for order to show cause seeking additional discipline for the respondent’s failure to comply with an order of reprimand with conditions (by consent) issued by Kalamazoo Hearing Panel #2 on June 7, 2023. The grievance administrator also filed formal complaint 24-45-GA against the respondent for his alleged mishandling of a client matter and failure to answer a request for investigation. The two matters were consolidated. The respondent failed to file an answer to either the motion for order to show cause or the formal complaint, and a default was entered.
Based on the respondent’s default and as confirmed by the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that respondent committed misconduct as alleged in the formal complaint 24-45- GA. Specifically, the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [count 1]; failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) [count 1]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of MRPC 1.3 [count 1]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and/or failed to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [count 1]; failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation, such as failing to refund any advanced fees that had not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [count 1]; failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client in violation of MRPC 3.2 [count 1]; failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [count 1]; 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) [count 1]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) [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]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-2]; failed to answer a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(B)(2) [count 2]; and entered into or attempted to obtain an agreement that (a) the professional misconduct or the terms of a settlement of a claim for professional misconduct shall not be reported to the administrator, (b) the plaintiff shall withdraw a request for investigation or shall not cooperate with the investigation or prosecution of misconduct by the administrator, or (c) the record of any civil action for professional misconduct shall be sealed from review by the administrator in violation of MCR 9.104(10) [count 1]. The panel also found that the respondent violated the order of reprimand with conditions (by consent) previously entered in 22-83-JC in violation of MCR 9.104(9).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for two years and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,887.43.