SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Kevin E. Clinesmith, P70962, Washington, D.C., by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #25. Suspension, two years, effective August 19, 2020.
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 contains the respondent’s acknowledgment that he was convicted by guilty plea of false statements, a felony, in violation of 18 § USC 1001(a) (3), in United States of America v Kevin E. Clinesmith, United States District Court, District of Columbia Case No. 20cr00165JEB1, as well as the parties’ agreement to certain facts and background as specifically set forth in the parties’ stipulation. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended effective August 19, 2020, the date of his felony conviction.
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3); engaged in conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4); 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).
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 two years effective August 19, 2020, as agreed to by the parties. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,037.10.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION (PENDING REVIEW)
Scott E. Combs, P37554, Plymouth, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #14. Disbarment, effective September 29, 2021.1
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in a wrongful discharge from employment claim.
The panel specifically found that the respondent failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his matter and comply properly with reasonable requests for information including, but not limited to, notifying his client promptly as to the status of settlement proceeds, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to his client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); after having modified his fee agreement to accept as his attorney fee for the employment matter the amount his client decided was fair, the respondent charged and/or collected a clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); after having modified his fee agreement to accept as his attorney fee for the employment matter the amount his client decided was fair, and upon keeping the entire $3,600 settlement check for himself, the respondent failed to communicate the basis or rate of his fee to his client, in violation of MRPC 1.5(b); failed to promptly deliver funds that his client was entitled to receive, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); failed to promptly render a full accounting to his client of the funds in his possession, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); when two or more persons, one of whom was the respondent, and the other of whom was his client, claimed an interest in all or part of the June 29, 2017, settlement check in the amount of $3,600, respondent failed to keep it separate in trust until the dispute is resolved, in violation of MRPC 1.15(c); failed to safeguard and hold property (funds) of a client in connection with the representation separate from the lawyer’s own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); and engaged in conduct that involved deceit or misrepresentation, where such conduct reflected adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b). The respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3); and MRPC 8.4(c).
The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and pay restitution in the total amount of $3,100.00. The respondent filed a timely petition for review and the matter has been scheduled for hearing before the Attorney Discipline Board.
ENDNOTE: 1 The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since October 14, 2020. Please see Notice of Suspension and Restitution (Pending Review), issued October 16, 2020, Grievance Administrator v Scott E. Combs, Case No. 15154GA.
NOTICE OF TRANSFER TO INACTIVE STATUS PURSUANT TO MCR 9.121(A)
Mitchell R. Dittman, P44513, Orion, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Transfer to inactive status, effective October 15, 2021.
The grievance administrator filed a formal complaint which charged that the respondent committed acts of professional misconduct warranting discipline. Prior to any scheduled proceedings, Tri-County Hearing Panel #73 was presented with a copy of an Order Regarding Appointment of Guardian of Incapacitated Individual entered August 28, 2019, in a matter titled In the Matter of Mitchell Ronald Dittman, Legally Incapacitated Individual, Oakland County Probate Court Case No. 2019-389,807-GL, that ordered the appointment of a guardian for the respondent based on the presentation of clear and convincing evidence that the respondent was incapacitated. The respondent’s guardianship was continued without modification in an order entered April 27, 2021, by the Oakland County Probate Court.
The Attorney Discipline Board concluded that the August 28, 2019, and April 27, 2021, orders of the Oakland County Probate Court constitute proof that the respondent has been judicially declared incompetent within the meaning of MCR 9.121(A) and issued an order transferring respondent to Inactive Status Pursuant to MCR 9.121(A) effective immediately for an indefinite period and until further order of the board. Formal Complaint 21-18GA was dismissed without prejudice.
SUSPENSION
Christopher S. Easthope, P53097, Saline, by the Attorney Discipline Board affirming, in part, modifying, in part, and reversing, in part, the Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #5 findings of misconduct and reducing discipline from a one-year suspension to a 180day suspension, effective October 16, 2021.
After proceedings held pursuant to MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that while the respondent was a judge at the 15th District Court, he engaged in numerous ex parte communications with his friend, an attorney who routinely appeared in front of him, and failed to disclose his personal friendship or disqualify himself from matters in which his friend was involved. The hearing panel found multiple violations of Canons 2A and B; and Canon 3A(4)(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct; MRPC 3.5(b); 8.4(a)-(c); and MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for one year effective November 22, 2019. The respondent filed a timely petition for review and for a stay of the order of suspension. On November 21, 2019, the board stayed the order of discipline on an interim basis pending further consideration. On December 18, 2019, an order was entered granting the respondent’s request for a stay of the panel’s October 31, 2019, order of suspension.
After review proceedings held pursuant to MCR 9.118, the board issued an order that affirmed, in part, modified, in part, and reversed, in part, the hearing panel’s findings of misconduct as set forth in an accompanying opinion. The board’s order also reduced the discipline imposed from a one-year suspension to a 180-day suspension effective October 16, 2021, and until further order of the Supreme Court, the Attorney Discipline Board, or a hearing panel, and until respondent complies with the requirements of MCR 9.123(B) and (C) and MCR 9.124. Costs were assessed totaling $5,660.63.
DISBARMENT
Stephen Michael Jones, P76182, Orlando, Fla., by the Attorney Discipline Board, effective October 6, 2021.
The grievance administrator filed a notice of filing of reciprocal discipline pursuant to MCR 9.120(C) that attached, in relevant part, a certified copy of an order entered by the Supreme Court of Florida on April 8, 2021, that immediately disbarred the respondent, Stephen Michael Jones, and required him to pay restitution in the amount of
$111,001.95, in a matter titled The Florida Bar v. Stephen Michael Jones, SC20-1593.
An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the board on July 20, 2021, 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 21-day period set forth in the board’s July 20, 2021, order expired without objection or request for hearing by either party.
On September 7, 2021, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan effective October 6, 2021. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,547.40.
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION
Gary D. Nitzkin, P41155, Scottsdale, Arizona, by the Attorney Discipline Board, affirming the Tri-County Hearing Panel #69 order of a 90-day suspension and restitution with condition and ordering additional restitution. Suspension, 90 days, effective September 22, 2021.
Tri-County Hearing Panel #69 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct in connection with his consumer credit protection practice, his advertising for his practice, and his representation of various clients in actions pertaining to the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The panel found that the respondent had a “troubling pattern of practice, which was designed to deceive unsuspecting and/or unsophisticated clients who had been subjected to debt collection actions and/or inaccurate credit reporting into signing engagement agreements with the mistaken belief that they would receive ‘free’ representation” when in fact they would not. The panel found multiple violations of MRPC 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(b), 1.16(d), 5.3(a)(c), 7.1(a), and MCR 9.104(4) as well as a violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1), 1.15(b)(3), 1.15(c), 1.15(d) as charged in the formal complaint.
The panel did not find violations of MRPC 1.2(a), 1.5(a), 5.1(a)(c), 8.4(a) and (b), and MCR 9.104(1), (2), or (3), as charged in the formal complaint.
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for a period of 90 days, that he pay restitution to five clients as set forth in the order, and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct.
On August 24, 2021, and August 25, 2021, respectively, the respondent and complainant Stephan Wilson filed petitions for review of the panel’s decision pursuant to MCR 9.118. The respondent requested and received an automatic stay of the hearing panel’s order pursuant to MCR 9.115(K). After review proceedings held in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board issued an order on April 27, 2021, that affirmed the hearing panel’s order of suspension and restitution with condition in its entirety and ordered that additional restitution be paid to Wilson.
On May 25, 2021, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which resulted in an automatic stay of the board’s order pursuant to MCR 9.118(E). On August 24, 2021, the board issued an order denying respondent’s motion for reconsideration. As a result, the board’s order of suspension and restitution with condition and ordering additional restitution became effective on September 22, 2021. Costs were assessed in the total amount of $7,935.88.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION
Lukasz Wietrzynski, P77039, Rochester Hills, by the Attorney Discipline Board affirming the Tri-County Hearing Panel #61 order of disbarment and restitution. Disbarment, effective October 14, 2021.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that the respondent committed professional misconduct as charged in a nine-count formal complaint. The panel found (counts I-VIII) that between June 2013 and November 2017, the respondent, his sister, and his then girlfriend/fiancée engaged in a number of fraudulent actions/transactions with the intent to deprive the respondent’s employer and the employer’s clients of fees and funds to which they were entitled; (count VIII) that in 2015, the respondent engaged in a conflict of interest with a litigation funding company; and, knowingly provided false testimony during his February 11, 2019, sworn statement taken by the administrator’s counsel (count IX).
The panel specifically found that the respondent collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) (counts I-V); engaged in representation of a client that was directly adverse to another client and he could not reasonably believe the representation would not adversely affect the client, in violation of MRPC 1.7(a) (count VIII); engaged in a representation of a client when that representation was materially limited by the respondent’s responsibilities to a third person, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b) (count VIII); failed to promptly notify a client when funds or property in which a client has an interest in is received, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1) (counts I-VII); failed to promptly pay or deliver funds to which a client was entitled, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) (counts I-VII); knowingly made a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(1) (count IX); failed to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, in connection with a disciplinary matter, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (count IX); 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 I-IX); and, engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, in violation of MCR 9.104(5) (counts I-VI). The respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(2)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) (counts I-IX).
On June 3, 2021, the respondent filed a timely petition for review and stay of discipline pursuant to MCR 9.118. The board granted an interim stay of discipline. After review proceedings held in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board issued an order on September 15, 2021, that affirmed the hearing panel’s order of disbarment and restitution in its entirety.
Total costs were assessed in the amount of $3,602.84.