DISBARMENT
Charles A. Carpenter, P61118, Maryville, Tennessee, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Disbarment effective March 1, 2022.
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 of Enforcement entered by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on Oct. 22, 2021, permanently disbarring respondent from the practice of law in Tennessee in a matter titled In Re: Charles Alphonso Carpenter, No M2021-01234-SC-BAR-BP.
An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the board on Dec. 21, 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 Dec. 21, 2021, order expired without objection or request for hearing by either party.
On Jan. 31, 2022, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan effective March 1, 2022. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,500.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Casper P. Connolly, P12136, White Lake, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #76. Suspension, 30 days, effective March 2, 2022.
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 to the factual statements contained in the formal complaint and his admission that he committed professional misconduct, as charged in the complaint, during his representation of a client in proceedings relating to bankruptcy and the judicial foreclosure of the client’s home.
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent engaged in a conflict of interest with a former client, in violation of MRPC 1.9. The panel also found that the respondent 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’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $759.76.
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Donovan Rashaad Johnson, P82508, Detroit, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #15. Suspension, 180 days, effective March 2, 2022.
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. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he was convicted in 2020 and 2021 for misdemeanor disorderly person (window peeping) in violation of MCL 750.167(1)(c) and his 2021 criminal conviction for misdemeanor trespassing in violation of MCR 750.552, reduced from window peeping (People v Donovan Rashaad Johnson, Case 20BT00820, 48th District Court; People v Donovan Rashaad Johnson, Case 20SO0149A, 46th District Court; People v Donovan Rashaad Johnson, Case 20-004728, 52-3rd District Court.)
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, 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).
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 180 days with conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $820.91.
REINSTATEMENT (WITH CONDITIONS)
Ralph Wendell Kimble, P64054, Union City, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Reinstated effective March 9, 2022.
The petitioner’s license to practice law in Michigan was suspended for 180 days effective Jan. 8, 2019. On Jan. 25, 2021, the petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to MCR 9.123 and MCR 9.124, which was assigned to Calhoun County Hearing Panel #1. After hearings on the petition, the panel concluded that the petitioner satisfactorily established his eligibility for reinstatement and on Feb. 17, 2022, issued an Order of Eligibility for Reinstatement with Conditions. On Feb. 23, 2022, the board received written confirmation that the petitioner paid his bar dues in accordance with rules 2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules concerning the State Bar of Michigan.
The board issued an Order of Reinstatement with Conditions reinstating the petitioner to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Feb. 24, 2022.
DISBARMENT
Charles William Malette, P68928, Sault Ste. Marie, by the Attorney Discipline Board Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #3. Disbarment effective May 2, 2021.1
The respondent was convicted by guilty pleas in the following cases: (1) People of the State of Michigan v Charles William Malette, 11th Circuit Court Case No. 2019 1478-FH of perjury, a felony, in violation of MCL 750.422-B; and (2) People of the State of Michigan v Charles William Malette, 50th Circuit Court Case No. 20-005108-FH of fraud-common law, a felony, in violation of MCL 750.280 and habitual offender second conviction in violation of MCL 769.10.
Based on his convictions, the panel found that the respondent engaged in conduct that violated criminal laws 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).
The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,676.75.
1. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Nov. 1, 2019. Please see Notice of Automatic Interim Suspension entered in Grievance Administrator v Charles William Malette, Case Nos. 19-121-AI; 20-21-JC, issued Nov. 26, 2019.
SUSPENSION
Steven Edward Phillips, P76651, Grand Rapids, by the Attorney Discipline Board Kent County Hearing Panel #3. Suspension, 180 days effective March 5, 2022.1
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he signed his former partner’s name without her permission or knowledge to a Petition to Reopen and Modify Trust which he then filed in Kent County Probate Court on behalf of his wife, with whom the respondent’s former partner had no established attorney-client relationship. Count 2 of the complaint alleged that the respondent failed to answer a request for investigation filed by his former partner within the required time frame referenced in MCR 9.113(A).
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that the respondent, with regard to Count 1, 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 in violation of MRPC 3.3 and engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law in violation of MRPC 8.4(b).
As to Count 2, the panel found that the respondent knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) and failed to answer a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2).
Additionally, as charged in both counts of the complaint, the panel found that the respondent 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 was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and 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).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 180 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,824.28.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Oct. 19, 2021. Please see Notice of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) issued Oct. 21, 2021.
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Hussein N. Rahal, P79471, Dearborn, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #16. Suspension, 90 days effective Feb. 10, 2022.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a First Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline with Conditions 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 plea of no contest to the factual statements contained in the formal complaint and his admission that he committed professional misconduct, as charged in the complaint, during his representation of a client in a personal injury matter and by filing a late answer to a request for investigation and failing to respond to the grievance administrator’s request for additional information and documents relating to the request for investigation.
Based on the respondent’s no contest plea, admissions, and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available means permitted by law in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 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 and by failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); and failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from the Attorney Grievance Commission in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2). The respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a)-(c).
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 with conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Bruce R. Redman, P46958, Lake Orion, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #76. Suspension, 30 days effective March 2, 2022.
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 to the factual statements and his admission that he committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in proceedings relating to the client’s bankruptcy and the judicial foreclosure of the client’s home and when he engaged in a real-estate deal with the same client that was a conflict of interest, and that resulted in litigation during which the respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and failed to sufficiently explain the matter to his client, as charged in Count 1 of the complaint. The parties agreed to dismiss all other factual statements and allegations of misconduct not admitted in their stipulation, including Count 2 in its entirety.
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; 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); and engaged in a conflict of interest/prohibited transaction in violation of MRPC 1.8(a). The panel also found that the respondent 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’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $808.52.
NOTICE VACATING INTERIM SUSPENSION AND NOTICE OF REINSTATEMENT
John H. Underhill, P42326, Adrian, by Attorney Discipline Board Livingston County Hearing Panel #1. Reinstated effective March 1, 2022.
On Oct. 21, 2021, Livingston County Hearing Panel #1 issued an Order of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) [Failure to Appear] suspending the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan effective Oct. 28, 2021.1
On March 1, 2022, the panel issued an order granting the respondent’s motion to set aside the Oct. 21, 2021, Order of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) [Failure to Appear]. The panel’s order reinstated the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan effective March 1, 2022.
1. See Notice of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), issued Nov. 1, 2021.
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Eric J. Wells, P54292, Bloomfield Hills, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #60. Reprimand effective Feb. 26, 2022.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Revised Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The revised stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he pleaded guilty on Jan. 29, 2019, to Operating While Intoxicated, second offense, a misdemeanor, in violation of 257.62561-A, People v Eric J. Wells, Sixth Circuit Court Case No. 2020-275745-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 $791.62.