News & Notices

Notice of Hearings on Petitions for Reinstatement September 2022

 

Michigan Bar Journal

 

State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board

In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Jason P. Ronning, P64779, ADB Case No. 22-32-RP

Petitioner

Notice is given that Jason P. Ronning (P64779) has filed a petition in the Michigan Supreme Court, the Attorney Discipline Board, and the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking reinstatement as a mem­ber of the State Bar and restoration of his license to practice law in accordance with MCR 9.124(A). In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Jason P. Ronning (P64779), ADB Case No. 22-32-RP.

Effective Sept. 15, 2017, the petitioner was reprimanded for misde­meanor welfare fraud, neglect, delay, failure to communicate, fail­ure to timely refund an unearned fee, and failure to answer a request for investigation. The hearing panel ordered conditions to the repri­mand including restitution in the amount of $2,500 and contacting Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program (LJAP) for an evaluation. The panel further ordered that if the petitioner failed to timely satisfy the terms of the conditions, the hearing panel would issue an order suspending his license to practice law for 120 days.

Effective Dec. 28, 2017, the petitioner was suspended for 120 days for his failure to comply with the conditions of the Sept. 15, 2017, reprimand.

Effective June 1, 2018, the petitioner was suspended for 180 days for neglect, delay, failure to communicate, failure to timely refund an unearned fee, and failure to answer a request for investigation. The suspension was conditioned on restitution in the amount of $1,000.

Effective Aug. 15, 2019, the petitioner was suspended for 30 months for practicing while suspended, failing to abide by a court order requiring him to pay a money judgment against him, and failing to timely respond to several requests for investigation. The hearing panel also found that the petitioner engaged in neglect, delay, failure to communicate, failure to timely refund an unearned fee, and knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal. The peti­tioner was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $10,000.

Effective Oct. 9, 2020, the petitioner was suspended for one year for failing to advise a client and the court that he was suspended, failing to advise his client that he would not be appearing on his behalf at a hearing, failing to refund unearned fees, and failing to answer a request for investigation. The petitioner was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,500.

The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the reinstatement peti­tion to Muskegon County Hearing Panel #2. A hearing is sched­uled for Monday, Aug. 29, 2022, commencing at the office of the hearing panel chairperson, Anthony J. Kolenic, Jr., 700 Terrace Pointe Rd., Ste. 350, Muskegon, MI 49440.

In the interest of maintaining the high standards imposed upon the legal profession as conditions for the privilege to practice law in this state and of protecting the public, the judiciary, and the legal profession against conduct contrary to such standards, the petitioner will be required to establish his eligibility for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence.

Any interested person may appear at the hearing and request to be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement.

Any person having information bearing on the petitioner’s eligibil­ity for reinstatement should contact:

Emily A. Downey, Senior Associate Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
755 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48084
(313) 961-6585
eadowney@agcmi.com

Requirements of the Petitioner

The petitioner is required to establish by clear and convincing evi­dence the following:

1. He desires in good faith to be restored to the privilege to prac­tice law in this state;

2. The term of the suspension or revocation of his license, which­ever is applicable, has elapsed;

3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his suspension or revocation;

4. He has complied fully with the terms of the order of discipline;

5. His conduct since the order of discipline has been exemplary and above reproach;

6. He has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the stan­dards that are imposed on members of the Bar and will conduct himself in conformity with those standards;

7. He can safely be recommended to the public, the courts, and the legal profession as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confi­dence and, in general, to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the court;

8. That if he has been out of the practice of law for three years or more, he has been recertified by the Board of Law Examiners; and

9. He has reimbursed or has agreed to reimburse the Client Protec­tion Fund any money paid from the fund as a result of his conduct. Failure to fully reimburse as agreed is grounds for revocation of a reinstatement.

State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board

In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of David L. Wisz, P55981, ADB Case No. 22-33-RP

Petitioner

Notice is given that David L. Wisz (P55981) has filed a petition in the Michigan Supreme Court, the Attorney Discipline Board, and the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking reinstatement as a mem­ber of the State Bar and restoration of his license to practice law in accordance with MCR 9.124.

Effective Oct. 1, 2021, the petitioner was suspended for 180 days by consent in Grievance Administrator v David L. Wisz, 20-79-GA. The hearing panel found, by stipulation of the parties, that the petitioner committed acts of professional misconduct. Specifically, the petitioner knowingly disobeyed obligations under the rules of a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) (counts 2 and 3); 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 1-3); engaged in con­duct that violates a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribunal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, specifically MCL 750.248 (making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting a public record), MCL 750.249 (uttering and publishing a forged, false, altered, or counterfeit record), MCL 750.356 (larceny), MCL 750.539c (eavesdropping upon private conversation), and MCL 750.539d (installation, placement, or use of a device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping in a pri­vate place) in violation of MCR 9.104(5) (counts 1-2); engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) (counts 1-3); 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 1-3); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (Counts 1-3).

The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the reinstatement peti­tion to Tri-County Hearing Panel #63. A virtual hearing is sched­uled for Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2022, commencing at 9:30 a.m. via Zoom.

In the interest of maintaining the high standards imposed upon the legal profession as conditions for the privilege to practice law in this state and of protecting the public, the judiciary, and the legal profession against conduct contrary to such standards, the petitioner will be required to establish his eligibility for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence.

Any interested person may appear at the hearing and request to be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement.

Any person having information bearing on the petitioner’s eligibil­ity for reinstatement should contact:

Sarah C. Lindsey, General Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
755 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48084
313-961-6585
sclindsey@agcmi.com

Requirements of the Petitioner

The petitioner is required to establish by clear and convincing evi­dence the following:

1. He desires in good faith to be restored to the privilege to prac­tice law in this state;

2. The term of the suspension or revocation of his license, which­ever is applicable, has elapsed;

3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his suspension or revocation;

4. He has complied fully with the terms of the order of discipline;

5. His conduct since the order of discipline has been exemplary and above reproach;

6. He has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the stan­dards that are imposed on members of the Bar and will conduct himself in conformity with those standards;

7. He can safely be recommended to the public, the courts, and the legal profession as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confi­dence and, in general, to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the court;

8. That if he has been out of the practice of law for three years or more, he has been recertified by the Board of Law Examiners; and

9. He has reimbursed or has agreed to reimburse the Client Protec­tion Fund any money paid from the fund as a result of his conduct. Failure to fully reimburse as agreed is grounds for revocation of a reinstatement.