SUSPENSION

L. David Bush, P51870, Berkley, by the Attorney Discipline Board affirming the Tri-County Hearing Panel #66 Order Denying Motion to Set Aside the Default and Order of Two-Year Suspension. Suspension, two years, effective July 14, 2022.¹

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found by default² that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of clients in two separate medical malpractice actions (counts 1 and 2) and appeared for closing arguments in In re Bourbeau Minors, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 2015-832568-NA, at a time when his license to practice law was suspended (count 3). The respondent was also alleged to have failed to answer or respond in any way to four separate requests for investigation (count 4).

Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that as to count 1, 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 a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed 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(b); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon the termination of a representation in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a third person in violation of MRPC 4.1; engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of MRPC 5.5(a); 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 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); engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4). As to count 2, 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 a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed 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(b); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon the termination of a representation in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); 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 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); and engaged in conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4).

As to count 3, the panel found that the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of MRPC 5.5(a); 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 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); 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 Michigan Supreme Court in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); failed to notify clients and courts of his suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(A) and (B); failed to file a proof of compliance for his suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(C); and failed to cease practicing law after the effective date of his suspension in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1)-(4).

As to count 4, the panel found that the respondent failed to answer requests for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7), 9.113(A), and 9.113(B)(2); knowingly failed to respond to a disciplinary authority’s request for information in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); 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); and engaged in conduct that violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of two years. The respondent filed a timely petition for review in accordance with MCR 9.118, arguing that the hearing panel abused its discretion in failing to grant his motion to set aside the default and requesting that the board set aside his default and remand to the hearing panel for a hearing on the merits.

The Attorney Discipline Board conducted review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118 on Oct. 19, 2022, which included a review of the evidentiary record before the panel and consideration of the briefs and arguments presented by the parties. On Nov. 22, 2022, the board issued an order affirming the hearing panel’s order denying the respondent’s motion to set aside default and order of suspension. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,137.47.

1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Feb. 12, 2020, as a result of his failure to pay bar dues to the State Bar of Michigan. The respondent’s license to practice law was also suspended for a period of one year in Grievance Administrator v. L. David Bush, 20-40-GA, effective Nov. 18, 2020.

2. After the record was closed and the panel was preparing its report, the respondent filed two belated Motions to Set Aside the Default and an Addendum, which were all denied by the hearing panel in an Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to Set Aside Default entered on May 17, 2022.

REINSTATEMENT

On Sept. 21, 2022, Tri-County Hearing Panel #9 entered an Order of Suspension and Restitution (By Consent) suspending the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 90 days, effective Oct. 13, 2022. On Jan. 4, 2023, the respondent, Phillip D. Comorski, submitted an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) attesting that he has fully complied with all requirements of the panel’s order and will continue to comply with the order until and unless reinstated. The board was advised that the grievance administrator has no objection to the affidavit, and the board being otherwise advised;

NOW THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that the respondent, Phillip D. Comorski, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Jan. 11, 2023.

REINSTATEMENT

On Oct. 10, 2022, Genesee County Hearing Panel #1 entered an Order of Suspension (By Consent) suspending the respondent from the practice law in Michigan for 30 days, effective Nov. 30, 2022. On Dec. 28, 2022, the respondent, David R. Fantera, submitted an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) showing that he has fully complied with all requirements of the panel’s order and will continue to comply with the order until and unless reinstated. The board was advised that the grievance administrator has no objection to the affidavit, and the board being otherwise advised;

NOW THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent, David R. Fantera, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Jan. 4, 2023.

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (WITH CONDITION)

Austin M. Hirschhorn, P15001, Huntington Woods, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #60. Suspension, 90 days, effective Jan. 5, 2023.

Based on the respondent’s default and evidence presented at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct as set forth in a two-count formal complaint filed by the administrator.

Count 1 of the complaint alleged that the respondent was hired to transfer the title of his client’s late husband’s home to the client’s grandson. The respondent failed to have a written fee agreement with the client upon her payment of a $500 retainer. The complaint further alleged that the respondent opened a probate matter but failed to appear for a hearing, which resulted in the dismissal of the client’s matter. It was further alleged that once the probate matter was opened, the respondent stopped communicating with his client, including failing to notify her that the probate case was dismissed. The respondent failed to answer a grievance administrator’s request for investigation but did appear when subpoenaed for a sworn statement. At the sworn statement, the respondent promised to reopen the probate matter and resolve any pending issues with the client at his own expense. However, when the formal complaint was filed, the probate matter had not been resolved nor had the respondent refunded any unearned fees to his client.

Count 2 of the formal complaint alleged that the respondent again failed to provide a written retainer agreement to his client in a child custody and parenting time matter and failed to take any action whatsoever once he was paid a $500 fee. Upon the filing of a request for investigation by the client, the respondent refunded the client her monies, requested that she advise the Attorney Grievance Commission that she received a refund, and requested that she remove a negative review she wrote online. When the client refused, the respondent repeatedly called the client until she finally blocked his number. Lastly, the respondent failed to answer the request for investigation.

The panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (counts 1-2); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients in violation of MRPC 1.3 (counts 1-2); failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (counts 1-2); failed to refund an advance fee that had not been earned in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (count 1); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MRPC 9.104(1) (counts 1-2); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2) (counts 1-2); engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (counts 1-2); engaged in conduct that was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) (counts 1-2); and failed to answer a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7), MCR 9.113(A), and MCR 9.113(B)(2) (counts 1-2).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 90 days, that he pay restitution in the total amount of $500, and he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,733.44.

REINSTATEMENT

On Nov. 15, 2022, Tri-County Hearing Panel #56 entered an Order of Suspension (By Consent) suspending the respondent, Michael D. Langnas, from the practice of law in Michigan for 30 days, effective Dec. 12, 2022. On Jan. 4, 2023, the respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) attesting that he has fully complied with all requirements of the panel’s order and will continue to comply with the order until and unless reinstated. The board was advised that the grievance administrator has no objection to the affidavit, and the board being otherwise advised;

NOW THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that the respondent, Michael D. Langnas, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Jan. 11, 2023.