SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS

David Charron, P39455, Grand Rapids, by the Attorney Discipline Board, affirming the Kent County Hearing Panel #4 order of suspension with conditions. Suspension, 60 days, effective June 10, 2023.

Based on the evidence presented to the hearing panel at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of the defendant in an insurance business dissolution dispute that involved lengthy and contentious litigation in both the Michigan and federal courts beginning in 2007 and concluding in 2019.

The panel found that the respondent engaged in undignified or discourteous conduct toward the tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.5(d); failed to treat others in the legal process with courtesy and respect in violation of MRPC 6.5(a); in the course of representing a client, made a knowingly false statement to a third person in violation of MRPC 4.1; 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); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that is 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 60 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. The grievance administrator filed a timely petition for review and the respondent filed a cross-petition for review and a petition for stay of discipline which resulted in an automatic stay of the hearing panel’s order of suspension with conditions.

After conducting review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, the board affirmed the hearing panel’s order of suspension with conditions on June 15, 2022. On Oct. 20, 2022, the respondent filed a timely application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, pursuant to MCR 9.122(A). On May 19, 2023, the Court issued an order denying the respondent’s application for leave to appeal. Costs were assessed in the total amount of $3,039.65.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Rochelle E. Guznack, P61675, Temecula, California, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #14. Reprimand, effective June 14, 2023.

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. The parties’ stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that she committed professional misconduct on various occasions between March 2017 and October 2018 by transferring client funds from her IOLTA into her personal and/or business account and by making deposits to her IOLTA to rectify shortfalls she created by removing unearned fees from the account.

Based on the respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent held funds other than client or third person funds in an IOLTA in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation in trust and separate from the lawyer’s own property in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); deposited her own funds into an IOLTA in an amount more than reasonable necessary to pay financial institution services charges or fees in violation of MRPC 1.15(f); and engaged in conduct that exposes 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. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,642.50.

SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)

Zachary Hallman, P78327, Dearborn, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #1. Suspension, 45 days, effective May 27, 2023.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of a 45-Day Suspension pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains the respondent’s admission to the factual allegations and allegations of misconduct set forth in the three-count formal complaint filed by the administrator, in its entirety. Specifically, the respondent admitted to neglecting a whistleblower action he was retained to file on behalf of a client, failing to reduce his contingency fee agreement with his client to writing, failing to tell his client that the action had been dismissed because of his neglect and unresponsiveness, failing to return his client’s file materials despite a specific request that he do so, failing to respond to a request for investigation subsequently filed by his client, and failing to provide a copy of his client’s entire file when subpoenaed to do so by the grievance administrator.

Based upon the respondent’s plea of no contest and the parties’ amended stipulation, the panel found that the respondent handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances in violation of MRPC 1.1(b) (count 1); neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (count 1); failed to seek lawful objectives of client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) (count 1); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 (count 1); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (count 1); 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) (count 1); failed to reduce his contingency fee agreement with his client to writing and, or failed to have his client, sign a contingency fee agreement in violation of MRPC 1.5 (count 1); failed to surrender papers and/or property to which the client is entitled in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (count 2); failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client in violation of MRPC 3.2 (count 2); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (count 3); failed to answer the request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2) and in violation of MCR 9.104(7) (count 3); engaged in conduct that is a violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) (count 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) (count 1); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) (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 1-2); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (counts 1-2).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 45 days effective May 27, 2023, as agreed to by the parties. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,540.21.

AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION

Samir W. Mashni, P32552, Redford, effective Jan. 18, 2023.

On Jan. 18, 2023, the respondent was convicted by guilty plea of conspiracy to engage in bribery through scheme to commit honest services mail fraud in violation of 18 USC §§ 371, 1341, and 1346, a felony, in United States of America v. Samir Mashni, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No. 21-cr-00359-RMR-1. Upon the respondent’s conviction in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended.

Upon the filing of a 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 under MCR 9.115(J).

SUSPENSION

Hanna M. Renna, P83589, Elmira, N.Y., by the Attorney Discipline Board. Suspension, 90 days, effective May 30, 2023.

In a reciprocal discipline proceeding filed pursuant to MCR 9.120(C), the grievance administrator filed a certified copy of an order of 90-day suspension with terms and conditions entered by the Supreme Court of Florida on Jan. 4, 2023, in a matter titled The Florida Bar v. Hanna Mary Renna, Supreme Court of Florida Case No. SC221484.

An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was served upon the respondent on March 15, 2023. The 21-day period referenced in MCR 9.120(C)(2)(b) expired without objection by either party and the respondent was deemed to be in default. Based on that default, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,509.

REPRIMAND

Toi Jasmin Thomas, P82295, Southfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #55. Reprimand, effective June 1, 2023.

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 after the parties provided additional information in further support of the stipulation at two separate virtual status conferences held before the panel in January and March 2023. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admissions that she was convicted on Sept. 3, 2019 by a jury verdict of Operating While Intoxicated (2nd), a misdemeanor, in People v. Toi Jasmin Thomas, 46th District Court, Case No. 19S00215, and that she failed to comply with the terms of a stipulation for contractual probation that she entered into with the grievance administrator on Dec. 13, 2019, and failed to comply with a monitoring agreement she entered into with the Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program (LJAP) on Jan. 21, 2020.¹ Both the stipulation for contractual probation and the monitoring agreement with LJAP resulted from the Attorney Grievance Commission’s investigation into the respondent’s criminal conviction.

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); 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 that is 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).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,128.80.