SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION
John F. Calvin, P 74477, West Bloomfield. Suspension for 180 Days, effective April 25, 20251
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #4 found that respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged in the three-count formal complaint. The misconduct found in Count One related to a client’s property dispute and the lawsuit stemming from it, and respondent’s failure to respond to the request for investigation related to the matter. In Count Two, respondent’s misconduct involved respondent’s neglect of a lawsuit filed in 46th District Court, failure to keep his client informed his client that the matter had been dismissed, and failure to refund his client or return the client’s file. The misconduct found in Count Three revolved around respondent’s neglect of a client’s dispute with their condominium association.
The panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (Counts One, Two, and Three); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 (Counts One, Two, and Three); failed to keep the clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (Counts One, Two, and Three); 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) (Counts One, Two, and Three); failed to refund any advance payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (Counts One, Two, and Three); failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client, in violation of MRPC 3.2 (Count One); knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) (Count One); 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 One); 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) (Count One). The panel found that respondent’s conduct also violated MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) (Counts One and Two); and,
MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(2)-(4) (Counts One, Two, and Three).
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days, effective April 25, 2025, and that he pay restitution totaling $5,100.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,543.04.
1. Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since January 29, 2025. See Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), issued on January 29, 2025.
DISBARMENT (BY CONSENT)
Lanny W. Fisher, P 69199, Buchanan. Disbarment effective April 2, 2025
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Disbarment, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Kent County Hearing Panel #4. The stipulation contained respondent’s acknowledgment that he was convicted by guilty plea of three counts of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Fourth Degree - Force or Coercion, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 750.520e (PACC Charging Code 750.520E1A); and two counts of Engaging in the Services of Another for the Purpose of Prostitution, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 750.449a (PACC Charging Code 750.449A), in a matter titled People of the State of Michigan v Lanny Winston Fisher, Berrien County Circuit Court, Case No. 2023-015383-FC.
Based on respondent’s conviction, acknowledgment, and the stipulation of the parties, the panel finds 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).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan, effective April 2, 2025. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $987.40.
DISBARMENT (BY CONSENT)
Austin M. Hisrchhorn, P 15001, Huntington Woods. Effective April 2, 2025.
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #64. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint. Specifically, respondent admitted to failing to comply with notification requirements of MCR 9.119 related to an earlier suspension of his law license; failing to withdraw from two litigation matters and continuing to represent clients during his period of suspension; appearing in court on behalf of a client at a probation violation hearing during his period of suspension; and, failing to answer the request for investigation and respond to the Grievance Administrator’s demand for information.
Based upon respondent’s admissions and the amended stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a) (Count One); violated an order of discipline, in violation of MCR 9.104(9) (Count One); failed to provide the required notification to all active clients of his order of suspension, in violation of MCR 9.119(A) (Count One); failed to provide the required notice to all tribunals and parties of his disqualification from the practice of law, in violation of MCR 9.119(B) (Count One); practiced law while his law license was suspended, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1) (Count One); held himself out as an attorney while his license was suspended, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(4) (Count One); 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 One); failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A) and MCR 9.113(B)(2), in violation of MCR 9.104(7) (Count Two); and, knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (Count Two). The panel also found respondent’s conduct to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(4) (Counts One and Two), and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c) (Counts One and Two).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, effective April 2, 2025. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,866.67.
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION
Suzanna Kostovski, P 39535, Washington, Michigan. Suspension for 180 Days, effective April 3, 20251
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #21 found that respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged in the five-count formal complaint. Specifically, the panel found that respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence and neglected four separate client matters; failed to adequately communicate with those clients and keep them reasonably informed; failed to surrender clients’ files and failed to refund an unearned fee; and engaged in the practice of law while her license was suspended, and otherwise failed to comply with the requirements of her order of suspension.
The panel found that respondent handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1(b) [Count One]; neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [Counts One through Four]; failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available means permitted by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) [Counts One through Four]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3 [Counts Two, Three, Four]; 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) [Counts One through Four]; 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) [Counts One through Four]; failed to communicate the basis or rate of her fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(b) [Count Four]; upon termination of representation, failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests, such as surrendering papers to which the client is entitled and refunding an unearned fee, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [Counts Two, Four]; 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 Five]; violated an order of discipline, in violation of MCR 9.104(9) [Count Five]; failed to provide the required notification to all active clients of her order of suspension, and in those cases in which she provided the notice, failed to timely provide the notice, in violation of MCR 9.119(A) [Count Five]; failed to provide the required notice to all tribunals and parties of her disqualification from the practice of law, and in those cases in which she provided the notice, failed to timely provide the notice, in violation of MCR 9.119(B) [Count Five]; practiced law while her license was suspended, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1) [Count Five]; communicated with clients while her license was suspended, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(2) [Count Five]; and held herself out as an attorney while her license was suspended, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(4) [Count Five]. The panel further found that respondent’s conduct violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) [Counts One through Five]; and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c) [Counts One through Five].
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days, effective April 3, 2025, and that she pay restitution totaling $8,500.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,777.14.
1. Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since December 14, 2023. See Notice of Suspension With Conditions (By Consent), issued on December 18, 2023, in Grievance Administrator v Suzanna Kostovski, 22-10-GA.
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Michelle L. Radloff1, P 51462, Farmington Hills, Michigan. Reprimand effective April 24, 2025.
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of a Reprimand With Conditions, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Grand Traverse County Hearing Panel #1. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that she committed professional misconduct in a breach of contract dispute between her client and a third party involving registering a dog litter with the American Kennel Club; and, by her failure to respond to two requests for investigation.
Based on respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [Count One]; failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) [Count One]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 [Count One]; 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]; knowingly failed to answer a request for investigation or demand for information in conformity with MCR 9.113(A)-(B)(2), in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Count Two]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) [Counts One and Two]; engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of com MCR 9.104(2) [Counts One and Two]; and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [Count Two].
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and required her to comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $942.44.
1. Respondent was previously known as Michelle L. Lund, Michelle L. Gullett, and Michelle L. Radloff, and is now known as Michelle L.G. Dallaire.
HEARING ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
Notice is given that Omar Fahmi Shabaan, P80425, 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 Omar Fahmi Shabaan (P80425), ADB Case No. 25-32-RP.
Effective April 3, 2024, Petitioner was suspended for one year in ADB Case No. 24-8-RD, per the reciprocal discipline filed by the Grievance Administrator, pursuant to MCR 9.120(C). The Supreme Court of Ohio suspended Petitioner’s license to practice law for two years, with one year stayed with conditions, effective October 11, 2023, in a matter titled Disciplinary Counsel v Omar Fahmi Shaaban, Case No. 2023-0179.1
The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the reinstatement petition to Tri- County Hearing Panel #1. A virtual hearing is scheduled for Thursday, July 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:
Mary A. Bowen
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.
1. A stayed suspension is not included as a type of discipline available in Michigan under MCR 9.106.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
On March 12, 2025, Tri-County Hearing Panel #7 entered an Order of Suspension and Restitution With Condition (By Consent) in this matter, suspending respondent’s license to practice of law in Michigan for 30 days, effective March 21, 2025. On April 17, 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 on April 22, 2025, that the Grievance Administrator has no objection to respondent’s reinstatement on the grounds set forth in MCR 9.123(A); and the Board being otherwise advised;
Now therefore, it is so ordered that respondent, John O. Knappmann, P 42983, is reinstated to the practice of law in Michigan, effective April 23, 2025.