SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Eric Allan Buikema, P58379, Farmington Hills. 3-year suspension effective August 4, 20251
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #52. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted of one count of operating while intoxicated 3rd offense, a felony, in violation of MCL/PACC 257.625(1)(a), in a matter titled People v Eric Allan Buikema, Lapeer County Circuit Court, Case No. 23-014499-FH.
Based on respondent’s admission and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that 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); and was 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).
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for three years, effective August 4, 2025, which is the date respondent is scheduled to be released from incarceration. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,131.19.
1. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since June 20, 2019. See Notice of Suspension (By Consent), Case Nos. 19-15-MZ; 19-25-JC, issued July 2, 2019.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Robert M. Craig, P35139, Dearborn. Effective October 15, 2024
On October 15, 2024, respondent was convicted by guilty plea of Operating While Intoxicated 3rd Offense, a felony under MCL 257.625, in State of Michigan v Robert Michael Craig, Wayne County Circuit Court Case No. 24-003774-01-FH. Upon respondent’s conviction and in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), 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).
HEARING ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
Notice is given that Craig E. Hilborn (P43661), 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 Craig E. Hilborn (P43661), ADB Case No. 25-20-RP.
Effective April 3, 2018, Petitioner was disbarred, per the stipulation for consent order of discipline filed by Petitioner and Grievance Administrator, 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 Petitioner’s admission that he was convicted of two counts of wire fraud (felonies), in violation of 18 USC 1343, in the matter titled United States of America v Craig E. Hilborn, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 18-cr-44-2. Based on Petitioner’s conviction and his admission in the stipulation, the hearing panel found that Petitioner 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)
The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the reinstatement petition to Tri- County Hearing Panel #66. A virtual hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, June 17, 2025, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
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, 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 Petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:
Austin D. Blessing-Nelson Associate Counsel Attorney Grievance Commission 755 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 2100 Troy, MI 48084 (313) 961-6585
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.
REINSTATEMENT
John A. Janiszewski, P74400. Effective March 17, 2025
On October 31, 2024, Tri-County Hearing Panel #18 entered an Order of Suspension with Condition (By Consent) in this matter suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 90 days, effective December 15, 2024, and ordering him to comply with a condition, and pay costs in the amount of $1,174.84. On November 22, 2024, respondent paid his costs, and on March 12, 2025, he filed an amended 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 Grievance Administrator did not file an objection to respondent’s affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A); and the Board being otherwise advised;
Now therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that respondent, John A. Janiszewski, P74400, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective March 17, 2025.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
Frederick D. Johnson, P36283. Effective March 13, 2025
On December 4, 2024, Kent County Hearing Panel #4 entered an Order of Suspension in this matter suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 75 days, effective December 26, 2024. On March 5, 2025, 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 respondent, Frederick D. Johnson, P 36283, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective March 13, 2025.
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)
John O. Knappman, P42983, Taylor. 30-day suspension effective March 21, 2025
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Hearing Panel #7. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission to being retained by a client to represent him in a civil matter and then later neglecting the case, which resulted in the case being dismissed for lack of progress. Respondent also pled no contest to misconduct in a separate client’s probate matter, where the court ultimately found deficiencies in the filings and dismissed his petitions for probate.
Based on respondent’s admissions, plea of no contest, and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent handled a legal matter which he knew or should have known that he was not competent to handle, without associating with a lawyer who is competent to handle it, in violation of MRPC 1.1(a) [Count Two]; handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1(b) [Count Two]; neglected a legal matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [Counts One and Two]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 [Counts One and Two]; failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of her matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [Count One]; failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests by surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of the fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [Count One]; and failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client, in violation of MRPC 3.2 [Count One]. The panel also found respondent’s conduct to have violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (c); and MCR 9.104(1)-(4) [Counts One and Two].
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days, effective March 21, 2025, that he pay restitution totaling $4,500.00, and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,494.05.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Joseph Anthony Paparella, P64848, Grand Rapids. Effective August 30, 2024
On August 30, 2024, respondent was convicted by guilty verdict of felonious assault, a felony under MCL 750.82; and reckless driving, a misdemeanor under MCL 257.626, in State of Michigan v Joseph Anthony Paparella, Kent County Circuit Court, Case No. 23-03822-FH. Upon respondent’s felony conviction and in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), 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).
DISBARMENT
David Chipman Venie, P 68087, Blacksburg, Virginia. Disbarment effective March 20, 20251
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #9 found, by default, that respondent submitted a falsified document to the Attorney Grievance Commission with the intent to conceal his creation of a business entity under a false name, that he intentionally deceived the Commission as to ownership of a Capital One bank account, and that he presented false “income reconciliation” spreadsheets regarding his Bank of America business checking account.
Based on respondent’s default and the evidence presented by the Grievance Administrator, the panel found that respondent knowingly made false statements of material fact in connection with a disciplinary proceeding, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(1); and 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). The panel also found respondent’s conduct violated MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1)-(3).
The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,822.52.
1. Respondent has been disbarred since August 18, 2017. See Notice of Disbarment, issued August 18, 2017, in Grievance Administrator v David Chipman Venie, 17-49-RD.
SUSPENSION
Michael J. Zayed, P53518, White Lake. One-year suspension effective March 19, 20251
The Grievance Administrator filed a combined Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction and Formal Complaint against respondent. The notice, filed in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3), stated that respondent was convicted by guilty plea of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated 2nd offense, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257.6256B. The Formal Complaint alleged that respondent committed professional misconduct by failing to provide notice of his conviction to the Attorney Discipline Board and Attorney Grievance Commission as re panel required by MCR 9.120(A) and (B), and by failing to answer a request for investigation from the Grievance Administrator.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115 and 9.120, Tri-County Hearing Panel #66 found that respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction, and that by virtue of his default for failure to answer the formal complaint or appear at the hearing, respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged in the formal complaint, in its entirety.
Specifically, the panel found, based on respondent’s conviction, that 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); and 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). Based on respondent’s default and evidence presented at the hearing, the panel also found that respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the 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 the 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); engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4); failed to notify the Grievance Administrator and the Board of the conviction within 14 days after the conviction, in violation of MCR 9.120(A)(1); and failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A)(B)(2), in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MRPC 8.1(a)(2).
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for one year.
Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,915.23.
1. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since September 19, 2024. See Notice of Suspension, Grievance Administrator v Michael J. Zayed, Case Nos. 24-41-JC; 24-42-GA, issued September 25, 2024.