REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Wright W. Blake, P37259, Detroit, by the At­torney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #12. Reprimand effective Feb. 3, 2022.

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 the hearing panel. The stipula­tion contained the respondent’s admission that he pleaded guilty on Jan. 14, 2020, to Operating While Intoxicated — Second Of­fense, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625, in People v Wright W. Blake, Ma­comb County 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Case No. 2018-004185-FH.

Based on the respondent’s plea, admission, 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 subject to conditions relevant to the established mis­conduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $810.06.

REPRIMAND BY CONSENT¹

D. Michael Cherry, P23882, Mt. Clemens, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Reprimand effective July 19, 2019.

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 con­tained the respondent’s admission that he committed professional misconduct by en­gaging in conduct involving a violation of the criminal law and the parties agreed that the respondent be reprimanded and subject to conditions as set forth in the stipulation.

Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent committed pro­fessional misconduct when he 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 involving violation of a criminal law where such conduct reflects adversely on the respondent’s fitness as a lawyer in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); 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 MRPC 8.4(a); and engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law of a state in viola­tion of MCR 9.104(5).

On Dec. 8, 2020, in response to a motion to modify filed by the respondent, Tri- County Hearing Panel #103 issued an order that modified the conditions and extended the time frames set forth in the panel’s origi­nal order. The respondent filed a petition for review and after proceedings held in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board issued an order that affirmed the hearing panel’s order modifying conditions in its en­tirety. Thereafter, the respondent filed a mo­tion for reconsideration. On Dec. 14, 2021, the board issued an order granting the re­spondent’s motion for reconsideration to the extent that the conditions set forth in the panel’s original order of reprimand with conditions (by consent) and order modifying those conditions were vacated. The panel’s order of reprimand, effective July 19, 2019, was ordered to remain in effect. Costs were assessed in the amount of $899.25.

REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)

Phillip D. Comorski, P46413, Detroit, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #3. Reprimand effective Jan. 29, 2022.

The respondent and the grievance adminis­trator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) that was approved by the Attorney Griev­ance Commission and accepted by the hear­ing panel. Based upon the respondent’s ad­missions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent commit­ted professional misconduct in connection with his representation of a client in post-conviction proceedings relating to filing a motion for relief from judgment and a poten­tial habeas corpus petition. Further, the panel found that the respondent made misrepresen­tations to the grievance administrator during the investigation of a request for investigation filed against the respondent by the client.

Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent failed to competently represent his client in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); ne­glected a matter entrusted to him in viola­tion of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the law­ful objectives of the client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information in vio­lation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed deci­sions regarding the representation in viola­tion of MRPC 1.4(b); in connection with a disciplinary matter, knowingly made a false statement of material fact in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(1); engaged in conduct involv­ing dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresenta­tion, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); and made a knowing misrepresen­tation of fact or circumstances surrounding a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(6). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and pay resti­tution totaling $8,100. Costs were assessed in the amount of $778.96.

REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Adam J. Gantz, P58558, Farmington Hills, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #61. Reprimand effective Jan. 28, 2022.

The respondent and the grievance adminis­trator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) that was approved by the Attorney Griev­ance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon the respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ stipu­lation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he neglected his representation of clients in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy matter to the extent that the bankruptcy trustee had to release funds intended for the clients’ mortgage to their unsecured creditors.

Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances in violation of MRPC 1.1(b); failed to pro­vide competent representation to his client by neglecting a legal 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; failed to keep his client reasonably in­formed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); and failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the rep­resentation in violation of MRPC 1.4(b). The respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(2)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and subject to conditions relevant to the established mis­conduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $772.

SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Christa Rosella Minnick, P72689, Novi, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #69. Suspension, three years, effective Jan. 11, 2022.

The respondent and the grievance adminis­trator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of a Three-Year Suspension with Conditions in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon the respondent’s admis­sions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent commit­ted professional misconduct while employed as an associate attorney at a law firm that handles immigration matters and when she failed to answer a request for investigation.

Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that with regard to Counts 1-6, the respondent failed to provide competent representation to her clients in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful ob­jectives of her clients in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable dili­gence and promptness in representing her clients in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep her clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary for a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); knowingly made a false statement of mate­rial fact in violation of MRPC 4.1 and 8.4(b) (Count 1 only); engaged in conduct that vio­lated or attempted to violate the standards and/or rules of professional conduct ad­opted by the Michigan Supreme Court in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that involved dishon­esty, fraud, 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); 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); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).

With regard to Count 7, the panel found that the respondent knowingly failed to timely answer a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7), MCR 9.113(A), and MCR 9.113(B)(2); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for informa­tion in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the ad­ministration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); and engaged in conduct that violated or attempted to vio­late the standards and/or rules of profes­sional conduct adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4).

In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel ordered that the respondent’s li­cense to practice law be suspended for a period of three years and that she be sub­ject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $764.40.

AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION

John Koby Robertson, P62137, Bloomfield Hills, effective Dec. 3, 2021.

On Dec. 3, 2021, the respondent was con­victed by guilty plea of Attempted Failure to Pay Child Support in violation of MCL 750.92 in the matter titled People v John Robertson, 44th Circuit Court Case No. 21-026886-FH. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to prac­tice law in Michigan was automatically sus­pended on the date of his felony conviction.

Upon the filing of a certified 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.

REINSTATEMENT

On Nov. 22, 2021, Emmet County Hearing Panel #3 entered an Order of Suspension (By Consent) that suspended the respon­dent’s license to practice law in Michigan for 30 days effective Dec. 13, 2021. On Jan. 5, 2022, the respondent, Michael H. Schuitema, submitted an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) stating that he has fully complied with all requirements of the pan­el’s order. On Jan. 5, 2022, the board was advised that the grievance administrator had no objection to the affidavit; and the board being otherwise advised;

NOW THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Michael H. Schuitema, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective Jan. 12, 2022.

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 Oct. 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 1-8) 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 8) that in 2015, the respondent engaged in a conflict of interest with a litigation funding company; and knowingly provided false testimony during his Feb. 11, 2019, sworn statement taken by the administrator’s coun­sel (Count 9).

The panel specifically found that the re­spondent collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) (Counts 1-5); engaged in a 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 8); engaged in a representa­tion of a client when that representation was materially limited by respondent’s re­sponsibilities to a third person in violation of MRPC 1.7(b) (Count 8); failed to promptly notify a client when funds or property in which a client has an interest is received in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1) (Counts 1-7); failed to promptly pay or deliver funds to which a client was entitled in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) (Counts 1-7); knowingly made a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter in vio­lation of MRPC 8.1(a)(1) (Count 9); 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 9); 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 1-9); 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 1-6). The respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(2)- (4) and MRPC 8.4(a) (Counts 1-9).

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 Sept. 15, 2021, that affirmed the hearing panel’s order of disbarment and restitution in its entirety.

The respondent filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Su­preme Court on Nov. 19, 2021. The Court denied the respondent’s application for leave on Jan. 4, 2022.