DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION
Tarek M. Baydoun, P74551, Dearborn, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #14. Disbarment effective May 27, 2022.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that the respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged in a four-count formal complaint during his representation of clients in one landlord-tenant matter (count 1) and four separate personal injury matters (counts 2-3). The respondent was also alleged to have failed to answer or respond in any way to five separate requests for investigation (count 4).
Based on the respondent’s default, the panel found that the respondent 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) [count 3]; knowingly disobeyed obligations under the rules of a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) [counts 1-2]; failed to promptly notify the client or third person when funds or property in which a client or third person has an interest is received in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1) [counts 2-3]; failed to promptly pay or deliver any funds that clients or third persons were entitled to receive in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) [counts 1-3]; failed to safeguard client funds held in connection with a representation by failing to hold them in trust in an IOLTA or non-IOLTA trust account and to separate them from respondent’s own funds or those of his firm in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) [count 3]; knowingly failed to timely respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [count 4]; and failed to timely answer a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2) [count 4]. The panel also found that the respondent violated MRPC 8.4(a) [counts 1-4]; MRPC 8.4(b) [counts 1-3]; MCR 9.104(2) [counts 1-3]; and MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-3].
The panel ordered that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and pay restitution in the total amount of $94,000. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,898.89.
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)
Brian M. Ellison, P64090, Southfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #51. Reprimand effective May 27, 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 during his representation of a client in a divorce proceeding in 2018. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the respondent knew that his client provided false testimony during a hearing to take the necessary proofs for a consent judgment of divorce but failed to correct the record or otherwise take remedial action.
In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent offered evidence that the lawyer knew to be false in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(3); failed to take remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal after becoming aware that his client’s testimony was false in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(3); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); and engaged in conduct that exposed 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 hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION
George D. Gostias, P73774, Livonia, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #17. Suspension, 180 days effective May 27, 2022.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that the respondent committed professional misconduct when, after being retained and paid $2,000 to assist in expunging a client’s felony record, he abandoned the rep resentation without ever taking any action on his client’s behalf and failed to respond to a request for investigation he acknowledged receiving in an email to the administrator’s counsel.
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to take reasonable steps to protect his client’s interests upon termination of a representation such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property the client is entitled to, and refunding any advance fee that has not been earned in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information 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). The respondent was also found to have violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (c); and MCR 9.104(1)-(4). The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days and that he pay restitution in the total amount of $2,000. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,680.44.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Alexandra Ichim, P79557, Waterford, effective April 25, 2022.
On April 25, 2022, the respondent pleaded guilty to forgery in violation of MCL 750.248, a felony, in the matter titled People of the State of Michigan v Alexandra Ichim, 7th Circuit Court Case No. 22-049158-FH. The respondent’s plea was accepted by the court the same day. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended on the date of her 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.
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
James Lawrence, P33664, Clinton Township, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #80. Suspension, 100 days effective June 2, 2022.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of 100-Day Suspension with Condition1 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 during his representation of a client in his attempt to obtain post-conviction relief from his 1983 first-degree murder conviction and during his representation of another client to investigate if a sufficient basis existed to file a motion for relief from judgment regarding his 1995 first-degree murder conviction.
Based upon the respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, 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 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 a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable request for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); upon termination of representation, failed to refund an unearned fee in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); and knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2). The respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1) and (2) and MRPC 8.4(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 100 days and that he be required to pay restitution totaling $2,500. Costs were assessed in the amount of $874.02.