DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

Elizabeth Dallam Ayoub, P65413, Holland. Disbarment, effective Feb. 26, 2025.¹

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Muskegon County Hearing Panel #1 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during her representation of clients in a case as alleged in a one-count formal complaint, namely that she failed to communicate settlement discussions to her clients, unilaterally terminated the attorney/client relationship, refused to appear at subsequent motion hearings, and failed to advise the court that she would not appear.

Based upon the evidence presented and reviewed, the panel found that the respondent neglected a client matter 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 with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to protect the client’s interests upon the termination of representation in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); failed to refund unearned fees in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); engaged in conduct that violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); 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 be disbarred pay restitution in the total amount of $27,809.66. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,756.35.

1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Nov. 14, 2024. See Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) issued Nov. 14, 2024.

REINSTATEMENT WITH CONDITIONS

David D. Black, P43367, St. Clair Shores. Reinstated, effective March 7, 2025.

The petitioner’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since April 13, 2011. Grievance Administrator v. David D. Black, 11-50-AI; 11-125-JC (four-year suspension, effective April 13, 2011). On May 5, 2022, the petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement and on May 20, 2022, filed an amended petition for reinstatement pursuant to MCR 9.123(B) which was assigned to Tri-County Hearing Panel #102. After a hearing on the petition, the panel entered an order of eligibility for reinstatement on Dec. 15, 2023.

The grievance administrator filed a petition for review on Jan. 4, 2024. On Aug. 20, 2024, the board entered an order affirming the hearing panel’s order of eligibility for reinstatement and adding conditions for a two-year period. The board further ordered that an order of reinstatement would be issued upon receipt of written verification that the petitioner paid his applicable membership dues to the State Bar of Michigan in accordance with Rules 2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules Governing the State Bar and that the petitioner had been recertified by the Board of Law Examiners.

On March 5- 6, 2025, the board received written verification from the State Board of Law Examiners that the petitioner is entitled to  recertification as a member of the State Bar of Michigan and that he has paid his applicable membership dues.

The board issued an Order of Reinstatement With Conditions reinstating petitioner to the practice of law in Michigan, effective March 7, 2025.

AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION

Michelle L. Elowski, P74608, Alpena. Effective Jan. 16, 2025.

On Jan. 16, 2025, the respondent was convicted by no contest plea of embezzlement by agent, over $1,000 less than $20,000, a felony, under MCL 750.174(4)(a); and check non-sufficient funds $100 or more but less than $500, a misdemeanor, under MCL 750.131(3)(b)(i) in State of Michigan v Michelle L. Elowski, Oscoda County 23rd Circuit Court, Case Nos. 24-1953- FH; 24-1954-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).

DISBARMENT

Brandon John Janssen, P78132, Detroit. Disbarment, effective Feb. 20, 2025.¹

A show cause hearing was held in this matter on the grievance administrator’s motion for an order to show cause why discipline should not be increased, which alleged that the respondent failed to comply with the Tri-County Hearing Panel #3 order of suspension and restitution with condition and the requirements of MCR 9.119 by continuing to practice law and by holding himself out as a Michigan attorney after the suspension of his license to practice law on March 19, 2024.

Based on the evidence admitted at the show cause hearing, the panel found that the respondent held himself out as an attorney in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(4); practiced law during a period of suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1); appeared as an attorney before a public authority in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(3); and, as such, violated an order of discipline in violation of MCR 9.104(9).

The hearing panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan, effective Feb. 20, 2025. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,669.30.

1. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since March 19, 2024. See Notice of Suspension and Restitution with Condition issued March 20, 2024, Grievance Administrator v Brandon John Janssen, Case No. 23-21-GA.

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

Michael Orrin King Jr., P71345, Grand Rapids. Interim suspension, effective Feb. 27, 2025.

The respondent failed to appear before Kent County Hearing Panel #1 for its Feb. 19, 2025, hearing and satisfactory proofs were entered into the record that he possessed actual notice of the proceedings. As a result, the hearing panel issued an Order of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) [Failure to Appear] effective Feb. 27, 2025, and until further order of the panel or the board.

SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)

Dennis J. Malecki, P80291, Grand Rapids. Suspension, 60 days, effective Feb. 26, 2025.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Kent County Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted on Sept. 24, 2021, of operating with a blood alcohol content of .17 or more in violation of MCL 257.625(1)(c) as set forth in the Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction, and that his conviction constituted professional misconduct. The stipulation also contained the parties’ agreement that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 60 days.

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) 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’s license to practice law be suspended for 60 days, effective Feb. 26, 2025. Costs were assessed in the amount of $760.99.

DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION (PENDING APPEAL)

Craig A. Tank, P58360, St. Clair Shores. Disbarment, effective March 1, 2025.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found that based on the respondent’s plea of no contest to all 12 counts in the formal complaint, the respondent committed professional misconduct in 11 separate client matters and when he failed to cooperate with the administrator’s investigation. Count 1 involved his representation of a criminal defendant and the failure to inform his client that his law license was going to be suspended. Counts 2, 3, and 10 all involved conduct related to the respondent’s representation of three separate criminal defendants and filing of motions for relief from judgment under MCR 6.500. Count 4 involved conduct related to a client’s appeal of a district court sentence. Count 5 involved the respondent’s conduct in a case where he was contacted by a woman to discuss her husband’s potential entry into an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program. Count 6 involved the respondent’s representation of an incarcerated criminal defendant charged with fleeing and eluding. Count 7 involved the respondent’s conduct during his representation of a client in a federal conspiracy to commit armed robbery case. Count 8 involved the respondent’s conduct related to a client’s intoxicated driving case. Count 9 involved conduct during the respondent’s representation of an incarcerated individual charged with several seri ous crimes. Count 11 involved the respondent’s conduct during his representation of a criminal defendant in a larceny case. Count 12 involved the respondent’s failure to answer several requests for investigation.

The panel found through the respondent’s plea of no contest that he neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [counts 1-11]; failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) [counts 1-11]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of MRPC 1.3 [counts 1-11]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [counts 1-11]; created a conflict of interest and failed to detail the conflict or seek consent after consultation in violation of MRPC 1.7 [count 5]; misappropriated funds by failing to deposit them in an IOLTA and withdraw them as earned in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) and (g) [count 11); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation such as failing to refund any advance payment of fee that has not been earned in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [counts 1-11]; engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out as an attorney to practice in the Eastern District of Michigan in violation of MRPC 5.5(b)(2) [count 7]; knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [count 12); 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 1-11]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) [counts 1-12]; 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 1-12]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-12]; made a knowing misrepresentation of facts or circumstances surrounding a request for investigation or complaint in violation of MCR 9.104(6) [counts 1, 2, and 11); failed to timely answer a request for investigation in the time permitted in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(7) and MCR 9.113(B)(2) (count 12); and violated an order of discipline by holding himself out as a lawyer after a suspension in violation of MCR 9.104(9) and MCR 9.119(E) (count 1).

The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred, effective March 1, 2025, to allow the respondent additional time to wrap up his practice. The respondent was also ordered to pay restitution totaling $21,400. The respondent timely filed a petition for review and this matter will be scheduled for hearing before the Attorney Discipline Board.

REPRIMAND WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)

Dustin T. Wachler, P78656, Royal Oak. Reprimand, effective Feb. 26, 2025.

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 Tri-County Hearing Panel #55. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admissions that he was convicted by guilty pleas of: (1) on Feb. 28, 2022, Operating Vehicle While Impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC 257.6253-A; (2) on March 4, 2022, Operating While Visibly Impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC 257.6253-A; and (3) on June 13, 2022, Operator License Sus/Rev/Den — First Offense, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC 257.9041(B) and Controlled Substance Use, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC 333.74042(A) as set forth in the Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction and that his convictions constituted professional misconduct.

Based on the respondent’s convictions, 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 and be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $787.20