DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

Michael Orrin King, Jr., P 71345, Grand Rapids. Disbarment, Effective May 15, 2025¹

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Kent County Hearing Panel #1 found, by default, that respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of three clients in separate matters, and by failing to meaningfully participate in the Grievance Administrator’s requests for investigations brought by those former clients.

Based on respondent’s default and the evidence presented by the Grievance Administrator, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [Counts One, Three, Five]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 [Counts One, Three, Five]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4 [Counts One, Three, Five]; failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [Counts One, Three, Five]; 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]; engaged in conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) [All Counts]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) [All Counts]; engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2) [All Counts]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [All Counts]; knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Counts Two, Four, Six]; and 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 Six].

The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, and that he pay restitution in the total amount of $10,300.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,234.48.

1. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since February 27, 2025. See Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), issued March 3, 2025.

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)

Jonathan D. Abrahams, P 46642, Farmington Hills, Michigan Reprimand, Effective June 13, 2025.

Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a 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 #104. Respondent pled no contest to the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-19 and 27-51, and to the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in subparagraphs 52(c), (d), (f), (h), and (k) of the formal complaint, namely that during his representation of a family who had been in an automobile accident in Florida, he failed to inform the clients that he was not licensed to practice in Florida, failed to adequately communicate with the automobile insurance company or his clients, failed to inform his client of developments or settlement offers, and missed critical correspondence and requests for independent medical exams, which ultimately led the insurance company to close the PIP claims and later reduce the value of the third-party claims.

Based on respondent’s no contest plea and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of 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 make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client, in violation of MRPC 3.2; 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 panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and required him to comply with a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,235.76.

SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Jon H. Berkey, P 10728, La Jolla, CA Suspension - 90 Days, Effective June 25, 2025

Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Second Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #14. The second amended stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the third amended formal complaint. Specifically, that respondent committed professional misconduct when he misused his IOLTA, failed to provide a valid address to the State Bar of Michigan, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while living in California, falsely advertised regarding his ability to practice law in California, and provided false statements to the Grievance Administrator.

Based on respondent’s admissions and the second amended stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent held his own funds into his IOLTA in an amount more than reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f) [Count One]; practiced law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, in violation of MRPC 5.5(a) [Count Three]; used a form of public communication that was misleading, in violation of MRPC 7.1 [Count Two]; engaged in advertisement and communications that omitted facts necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading, in violation of MRPC 7.1(a) [Count Four]; used a firm name that implied a partnership or other association that was not accurate by using the plural of “attorney” in his letterhead, in violation of MRPC 7.5(d) [Count Four]; knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Counts One and Five]; violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) [Counts One and Three]; and engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4) [Counts One, Two, and Three].

In accordance with the second amended stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,985.13.

1. On December 12, 2023, Ms. Rosinski filed an appearance on respondent’s behalf, and represented respondent until September 25, 2024, the date Ms. Rosinski’s motion to withdraw was granted.

2. The third amended formal complaint also contains five counts alleging that respondent committed professional misconduct by misusing his IOLTA, failing to provide a valid address to the State Bar of Michigan, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law while living in California, false advertising regarding his ability to practice law in California, and providing false statements to the Grievance Administrator.

3. While respondent has not previously been the subject of a formal disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the entry of an order of discipline, we have received evidence that respondent has twice been admonished by the Commission. We conclude that these admonishments must be characterized as a “prior disciplinary offense,” an aggravating factor set forth in ABA Standard 9.22(a), rather than as a mitigating factor under ABA Standard 9.32(a). See MCR 9.115(J)(3). However, because the discipline proposed is nonetheless appropriate, we will accept the parties’ stipulation for consent order of discipline.

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Joseph Bernwanger, P 71895, Ferndale, Michigan Suspension - 60 Days, Effective May 22, 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 Tri-County Hearing Panel #65. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to all of the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in a two count formal complaint. Regarding Count One, respondent admitted that he committed professional misconduct in his handling of a client’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy matter by failing to file a required Certification Regarding Domestic Support Obligations, which resulted in the bankruptcy petition being closed without a discharge. Respondent later filed a second Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition for the same client, but failed to inform his client of critical court dates. The second bankruptcy petition was also dismissed due to missed meetings and non-payment, and respondent did not disclose the actual reasons for the dismissal or take any further action on his client’s behalf. Respondent’s client learned that his original bankruptcy case was dismissed when he consulted with new counsel. Regarding Count Two, respondent admitted to failing to answer the request for investigation stemming from the above client matter.

Based upon respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, 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 a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [Count One]; failed to explain the 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 One]; knowing failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Count Two]; engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) [Count Two]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the Two]; 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 One and Two]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [Counts One and Two]; and 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).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 60 days, that he pay restitution totaling $500, and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,945.90.

SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)

Sean W. Drew, P 33851, Niles, Michigan Suspension - 30 Days, Effective May 21, 2025

Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Kent County Hearing Panel #2. The amended stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint. Specifically, that respondent commingled his personal and/or business funds with client funds and improperly paid business and/or personal expenses out of the IOLTA, and that he failed to answer the request for investigation regarding the aforementioned misconduct.

Based upon respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ amended stipulation, the panel finds that respondent failed to safeguard client property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d)1 [Count One]; commingled his personal funds with client funds, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) [Count One]; having received notification that an instrument presented against the trust account was presented against insufficient funds or that any other debit to such account would create a negative balance in the account, whether or not the instrument or other debit was honored, failed to, upon receipt of a request for investigation from the Grievance Administrator, provide the Grievance Administrator, in writing, within 21 days after issuance of such request, a full and fair explanation of the cause of the overdraft and how it was corrected, in violation of MRPC 1.15A(f) [Count Two]; failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Count Two]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) [Counts One and Two]; 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 One and Two]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [Counts One and Two]; and failed to answer a Request for Investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(B)(2) [Count Two].

In accordance with the amended stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,344.90.

1. Although the formal complaint failed to include the applicable subsection of MRPC 1.15, the language and conduct at issue falls under MRPC 1.15(d).

2. Respondent’s license to practice law has been continuously suspended since September 28, 2024. See Notice of Suspension and Restitution With Conditions, Grievance Administrator v Sean W. Drew, 23-103-GA, issued October 4, 2004

3 As stated in the amended stipulation, respondent completed this seminar on March 11, 2025, and thus has fulfilled this condition

4 Although the formal complaint failed to include the applicable subsection of MRPC 1.15, the language and conduct at issue falls under MRPC 1.15(d).

SUSPENSION

Luther W. Glenn, Jr., P 38683, Detroit, Michigan Suspension - 30 Days, Effective June 26, 2025

Based on the evidence presented at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #15 found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he failed to answer three requests for investigation served on him by the Grievance Administrator, and although he appeared for a sworn statement pursuant to a subpoena and provided testimony regarding the requests for investigation, he failed to provide written answers to either the requests for investigation or a request for additional information.

Specifically, the hearing panel found respondent failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Counts One through Four]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) [Counts One through Four]; 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 One through Four]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [Counts One through Four]; and failed to answer a Request for Investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(B)(2) [Counts One and Two]. The Panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,702.25

REPRIMAND

Jerry R. Hamling, P 37922, Rochester Hills, Michigan Reprimand - Effective October 17, 2024

The Grievance Administrator filed a Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3), showing that respondent was convicted by guilty plea of falsifying business records, a misdemeanor, in the State of New York, in violation of PL 175.05.00, in the matter of People of the State of New York Jerry Hamling and Affinity Human Resources, Case No. 771/2018.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.120, Tri-County Hearing Panel #54 found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he 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 hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded.

The Grievance Administrator filed a timely petition for review. After review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, on April 21, 2025, the Board affirmed the hearing panel’s imposition of a reprimand. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,333.05.

1. Amended to correct effective date of reprimand, which is October 17, 2024, pursuant to the hearing panel’s September 25, 2024, order of reprimand.

2. The alleged crime occurred in 2014, respondent was arrested in 2018, and the plea was accepted in 2020.

3. The indictment alleged that Parkside Construction avoided paying $7.8 million in insurance costs by hiding payroll from the New York State Insurance Fund. It was alleged that respondent directed Affinity Human Resources, LLC, the payroll processing company that he owned and that processed Parkside’s payroll, to treat Parkside’s three constituent companies as a separate entity rather than an alter-ego, thereby knowingly causing an omission in Parkside’s payroll records. Parkside allegedly then submitted the underreported payroll with the intent of obtaining workers’ compensation insurance premiums at a reduced rate. Respondent testified, however, that the payroll records were merely internal business records, and were never submitted to any outside entity. He also testified that the application for workers’ compensation insurance was submitted by Parkside prior to his active involvement with the day-to-day operations of Affinity.

4. Under New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 65.05, a conditional discharge is a sentence that is imposed by the court that does not involve imprisonment or probation supervision.

5. Respondent entered his guilty plea at the same time as counsel for Affinity entered the company’s guilty plea to the class E felony for knowingly and intentionally submitting false statements which underreported the construction company’s actual payroll, with the intent of obtaining workers’ compensation insurance premiums at a rate less than would have been covered by the State Insurance Fund

6. Standard 5.1 provides, in relevant part:

Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, or in cases with conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation:

Disbarment is generally appropriate when: a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of which includes intentional interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft; or the sale, distribution or importation of controlled substances; or the intentional killing of another; or an attempt or conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any of these offenses; or a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice.

Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal conduct which does not contain the elements listed in Standard 5.11 and that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice.

Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

7. New York Penal Law 175.05 states that “[a] person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he . . . [p]revents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.”

See In re Mozer, 60 AD2d 202 (NY 1978) (attorney convicted of a misdemeanor, causing a false entry to be made in the minutes of a meeting of a union, and, taking into consideration his previously unblemished record, public censure was appropriate); Matter of Micale, 217 AD3d.

8. (NY 2023) (attorney suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months based upon her conviction of the misdemeanor of falsifying business records in the second degree); In re Corbo, 76 AD2d 434 (NY 1980) (attorney who pleaded guilty to having offered a false instrument for filing in the second degree, a misdemeanor, was censured, taking into consideration certain mitigating circumstances); In re Karp, 122 AD2d 964 (NY 1986) (attorney convicted of misdemeanor for willfully submitting a false document to the IRS was publically censured); In re Katcher, 259 AD2d 128 (NY 1999) (attorneys who pled guilty to reduced charge of class A misdemeanor of fourth degree computer tampering after having been indicted for felonies of unlawful duplication of computer-related material, possession of such material, and third degree grand larceny, were publically censured where they had no prior disciplinary history, they were candid in acknowledging their guilt and expressing remorse, and they submitted character letters); Matter of Rudgayzer, 80 AD3d 151 (NY 2010) (even though attorney’s offering of a false instrument for filing constituted a “serious crime” under New York law, attorney suspended from the practice of law for two months because there was only one aggravating factor and several mitigating factors); In re Wong, 241 AD2d 297 (NY 1998) (one-year suspension imposed on attorney who was convicted of fifth degree insurance fraud for paying someone to dispose of his car, filing two false claims, and only acknowledging his misconduct after learning that police knew car had never been stolen).

9. The Panel also considered whether suspension could be warranted under ABA Standard 5.12, but again concluded that Respondent’s conduct did not “seriously adversely reflect” on respondent’s fitness to practice law.

Standard 9.32(e); the fact that respondent received other penalties and sanctions in New York, ABA Standard 9.32(k); and the genuine remorse reflected in respondent’s testimony to the panel, ABA Standard 9.32(l).

The panel does want to address the pending disciplinary proceedings in New York. Respondent was suspended for two years in that matter, pending appeal, which is still on-going. The Panel did accept the disciplinary report into evidence and reviewed it. The panel notes that, had the Grievance Administrator waited until the appeal process was over in New York, and the suspension was upheld, it could have brought this matter as a reciprocal discipline proceeding and the New York suspension would have been relevant. However, it did not do so. The panel is not commenting on, nor criticizing, the Grievance Administrator’s decision to bring this as a judgment of conviction proceeding instead of awaiting the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings in New York. Counsel for the Grievance Administrator articulated the reasons for doing so, chiefly, that the proceedings in New York are taking a very long time to conclude. Nonetheless, those proceedings have not concluded, and the panel is left to conduct its own analysis without any weight that a reciprocal discipline would have afforded.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Michael J. Kosta, P 51312, Grand Rapids, Michigan Reprimand - Effective May 21, 2025

Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Reprimand, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted by guilty plea of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257.6251-A, in People v Michael Joseph Kosta, 58th District Court, Case No. HL-23-003828-OD, and that the conviction constituted professional misconduct.

Based on respondent’s conviction, admission, and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $773.26.

1. The panel notes that the facts of this case do not fall within the literal scope of ABA Standard 5.13 because this case does not involve fraud or dishonesty. The panel nonetheless accepts the parties’ stipulation to apply the standard, because Standard 5.13 satisfies the otherwise unmet need for a benchmark that applies to this level of criminality by an attorney

SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS

Daniel J. Lehman, P 66126, Farmington Hills, Michigan Suspension - 30 Days, Effective May 8, 2025

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 of domestic assault, a misdemeanor, in violation of West Bloomfield Ordinance Sec. 15-51, in the matter titled Township of West Bloomfield v Daniel Joseph Lehman, 48th District Court Case No. 21-WB01579-D01-OM. The formal complaint alleged that respondent, while on probation for his criminal matter, was involved in a domestic altercation and consumed alcohol, resulting in his arrest and guilty plea to a probation violation on March 29, 2022, and that respondent failed to report his domestic violence conviction to the Grievance Administrator and Attorney Discipline Board.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115 and MCR 9.120, Tri-County Hearing Panel #62 found that respondent engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) and MCR 9.104(5); and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administrator of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c). The panel also found respondent’s conduct violated MCR 9.104(2)-(4).

The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Respondent filed a timely petition for review and was granted an automatic stay by virtue of MCR 9.115(K). After review proceedings were held in accordance with MCR 9.118, the Board affirmed the hearing panel’s decision in its entirety. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,883.88.

1. These two standards hold, as follows:

5.2 Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity - 5.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal conduct which does not contain the elements listed in Standard 5.11 and that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice.

6.2 Abuse of the Legal Process - 6.22 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that he or she is violating a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.

2. Respondent proffered cursory arguments in his brief in support of his petition for review, that the panel erred in finding misconduct under MCR 9.104(5) and MRPC 8.4(c) because respondent was not convicted of the criminal offense. The evidence submitted in the record including the pictures of respondent’s wife and the testimony of Officer Stephens is sufficient proof of the conduct for the panel to both find misconduct under MCR 9.104(5) and MRPC 8.4(c) and consider the nature of the conduct as to sanction. There is no Board precedent for the proposition that a conviction is required for a panel to conclude that a respondent engaged in criminal conduct. See Grievance Administrator v Peter E. O’Rourke, 93-191-GA (ADB 2020); Grievance Administrator v Carl Weideman, 05-79-GA (ADB 2007).

3. The original charge, domestic violence, second offense, was amended to include disorderly conduct. Respondent pled guilty to disorderly conduct on June 21, 2022, and the charge of domestic violence was dismissed. On July 26, 2023, the case was reopened and dismissed with prejudice. See Respondent’s Brief, filed November 16, 2023.

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

Daniel J. Lehman, P 66126

On April 9, 2025, the Attorney Discipline Board entered an Order Affirming Hearing Panel Order of 30-Day Suspension With Conditions in this matter, suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 30 days, effective May 8, 2025.

On June 5, 2025, respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A), attesting that he has fully complied with all requirements of the Board’s order and will continue to comply with the order until and unless reinstated. The Grievance Administrator informed the Board’s staff that they have no objection to respondent’s affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A); and the Board being otherwise advised;

Now therefore, it is ordered that respondent, Daniel J. Lehman, P 66126, is reinstated to the practice of law in Michigan, effective July 1, 2025.

DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

Kenneth B. Morgan, P 34492, Farmington Hills, Michigan Disbarment, Effective September 18, 2029¹

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #60 found that respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of clients and their business, which included missing court deadlines, failing to respond to motions, neglecting to produce discovery materials, and failing to inform his clients of court sanctions, which ultimately resulted in the dismissal of his clients’ claims; and by failing to answer a request for investigation. Because respondent failed to file an answer to the formal complaint, a default was entered by the Grievance Administrator on November 18, 2024.

Based on respondent’s default and the evidence presented by the Grievance Administrator, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he: failed to represent a client competently, in violation of MRPC 1.1(a) [Count One]; neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [Count One]; failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available means, 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 a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [Count One]; entered into an agreement for, charged, or collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) [Count One]; upon termination of representation, failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests, such as surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [Count One]; failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Count Two]; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) [Count One]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, in violation of MCR

9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) [Counts One and Two]; 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 One and Two]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [Counts One and Two]; engaged in conduct that violates the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MCR 9.104(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) [Counts One and Two]; and, failed to answer the Request for Investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2), in violation of MCR 9.104(7) [Count Two].

The Panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, effective September 18, 2029, and that he pay restitution in the total amount of $73,830.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,832.46.

1. Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since March 19, 2024. See Notice of 180-Day Suspension issued on March 22, 2024, in Grievance Administrator v Kenneth B. Morgan, 23-88-RD; 23-89-GA, and Notice of Suspension and Restitution issued on September 25, 2024, in Grievance Administrator v Kenneth B. Morgan, 24-7-GA. The panel ordered that the disbarment in the present matter run consecutively to the five-year suspension ordered in 24-7-GA.

2. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since March 19, 2024. See Grievance Administrator v Kenneth B. Morgan, 23-88-RD; 23-89-GA, Notice of Suspension issued March 22, 2024.

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

On November 5, 2024, the Attorney Discipline Board entered an Order Reducing Suspension from 180 Days to 179 Days and Affirming Condition in this matter suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 179 days, effective December 4, 2024.

On May 27, 2025, respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A), attesting that she has fully complied with all requirements of the Board’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, Catherine A. Jacobs, P 32996, is reinstated to the practice of law in Michigan, effective June 3, 2025.

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

On February 4, 2025, Kent County Hearing Panel #3 entered an Order of Suspension (By Consent) in this matter, suspending respondent’s license to practice of law in Michigan for 60 days, effective February 26, 2025. On April 28, 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 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, Dennis J. Malecki, P 80291, is reinstated to the practice of law in Michigan, effective May 8, 2025.

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

On April 30, 2024, the Attorney Discipline Board entered an order affirming the hearing panel’s order of suspension, affirming one condition, and vacating a second condition. As a result, respondent’s license to practice of law in Michigan was suspended for 100 days, effective May 29, 2024. On May 8, 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. The Board’s staff was informed by counsel that the Administrator has no objection to respondent’s reinstatement; and the Board being otherwise advised;

Now therefore, it is ordered that respondent, Andrew A. Paterson, P 18690, is reinstated to the practice of law in Michigan, effective May 13, 2025.