DISBARMENT (BY CONSENT)

Sufi Y. Ahmad, P43206, Pleasant Ridge, Disbarment, Effective August 23, 2025.¹

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 #16. The stipulation contained respondent’s no contest pleas to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the consolidated formal complaints (23-67-GA and 25-10-GA). Specifically, respondent failed to file legal matters on behalf of clients, mishandled settlement proceeds, failed to petition the court for a guardian ad litem to be appointed for a minor in a probate matter, mishandled multiple legal matters, entered into a settlement without the client’s permission, and failed to answer multiple requests for investigation.

Based on respondent’s no contest pleas and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (23-67-GA — Counts One and Three: 25-10-GA — Counts One, Two, and Three); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a), (23-67-GA — Counts One, Three, and Four: 25-10-GA — Counts One, Two, and Three); failed to act with diligence and promptness on behalf of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3, (23-67-GA — Counts One, Three, and Four: 25-10-GA — Counts One, Two, and Three); failed to keep a client reasonably informed regarding the status of a matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a), (23-67-GA — Counts One, Three, and Four: 25-10-GA — Counts One, Two, and Three); failed to promptly pay or deliver funds that a client or third party is entitled to receive, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3), (23-67-GA — Counts Two and Four); failed, when two or more people claim an interest in property, to keep the property separated until the dispute is resolved, in violation of MRPC 1.15(c), (23-67-GA — Count Two); failed to deposit client or third party funds into an IOLTA or non-IOLTA trust account, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d), (23-67-GA — Count Four); made a false statement of material fact or failed to correct a false statement previously made, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1), (25-10-GA — Count Three); knowingly disobeyed on obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c), (23-67-GA — Count Two); engaged in conduct that violates the rules or standards of professional conduct, in violation or MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4), (23-67-GA — Counts One, Two, Three, Four, and Five [Count Five is only in violation of MRPC 8.4(a)]: 25-10-GA — Counts One, Two, and Three); engaged in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty and/or misrepresentation, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b), (23-67-GA — Counts One, Three, and Four: 25-10-GA — Counts One, Two, and Three); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administrator of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1), (23-67-GA — Counts One, Two, Three, and Four: 25-10-GA — Counts One, Two, Three, and Four); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, and/or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2), (23-67-GA — Counts One, Two, Three, and Four: 25-10-GA — Counts One, Two, Three, and Four); engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty and/or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3), (23-67-GA — Count Two: 25-10-GA — Counts One, Two, Three, and Four); knowingly failed to timely respond to a lawful request for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2), (23-67-GA — Count Five: 25-10-GA — Count our); and, failed to timely answer a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2), (23-67-GA — Count Five; 25-10-GA — Count Four).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, effective August 23, 2025. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,979.32.

1. Respondent had been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since May 2, 2025. See Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) [Failure to Appear], issued on June.

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND

Laurel Meyers Byrnes, P84831, Colorado Springs, Colorado Reprimand, Effective August 14, 2025.

The Grievance Administrator filed a Notice of Filing of Reciprocal Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.120(C), that attached a certified copy of an order entered by the Supreme Court of Colorado on December 18, 2024, suspending respondent’s license to practice law in Colorado for one year and one day, to be stayed upon successful completion of a two-year period of probation subject to other conditions, in People v Laurel Meyers Byrnes, Colorado Discipline Case 24PDJ040.

An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the Board on May 28, 2025, ordering the parties to, within 21 days from service of the order, inform the Board in writing: (i) of any objection to the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan based on the grounds set forth in MCR 9.120(C)(1), and (ii) whether a hearing was requested. The 21-day period expired without objections by either party and respondent was deemed to be in default. As a result, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that respondent be reprimanded in Michigan.¹ Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,511.54.

1. Because the Michigan discipline system does not have a stayed suspension as a type of discipline, a reprimand is an appropriate and comparable level of discipline.

INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)

Mohamed A. Chaytou, P80023, Dearborn Interim Suspension—Effective July 31, 2025.

Respondent failed to appear before Tri-County Hearing Panel #7 for the July 18, 2025, hearing, and satisfactory proofs were entered into the record that he possessed actual notice of the proceedings. As a result, the hearing panel issued an Order of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) [Failure to Appear], effective July 31, 2025, and until further order of the panel or the Board.

NOTICE OF DISBARMENT (BY CONSENT)

Richard H. Clark, P69849, Bloomfield Hills, Disbarment, Effective August 29, 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 #53. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct as set forth in the six-count formal complaint, with the exception of paragraphs 60(a), 77, and 100(f), which the parties agreed to dismiss.

In Count One, respondent was retained to represent two individuals in an adversarial bankruptcy proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan. Respondent deposited a $20,000 retainer fee into his operating account and used those funds, along with several disbursements from the bankruptcy court, to pay personal and credit card expenses, including cash withdrawals and insurance companies. In October, 2022, Respondent’s co-counsel informed the clients that respondent could no longer represent them, and a formal substitution of counsel occurred in December 2022. Subsequent to his substitution out of the case, Respondent failed to respond to two letters from the clients requesting an accounting and refund of unearned fees, nor did respondent issue any refunds.

In Count Two, respondent commingled funds from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), earned income, and other personal funds with client funds in his IOLTA at various times in 2021 and 2022. Further, respondent used the PPP funds from his IOLTA to prepay for a year’s rent of his personal residence in Waterford.

In Count Three, respondent sent profane and abusive messages to a legal assistant. When asked to apologize, respondent instead replied with more vulgar and hostile language and continued to insult the individuals involved in the legal process of his divorce.

In Count Four, respondent was retained by another individual to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. The court confirmed a bankruptcy plan on October 5, 2017, to last 60 months. In October 2022, respondent’s client received notice from the trustee that the plan had expired, that the discharge provisions were not met, and that a motion to dismiss would be filed. A motion to dismiss was filed and served on respondent, who failed to object. The bankruptcy case was dismissed on December 5, 2022. Respondent did not inform his client and his client made several unsuccessful attempts to contact respondent through various methods.

In Count Five, respondent failed to respond to two requests for investigation.

In Count Six, it is detailed that respondent represented 29 clients in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan between 2017 and 2022. Midway through the cases, respondent ceased communication with both his clients and the court, effectively abandoning the representation. Sixteen of the cases were involuntarily dismissed due to respondent’s failure to file required documents, comply with court orders, or appear at hearings and status conferences. Respondent failed to inform those clients of the dismissals or to take any steps to reverse them. The remaining thirteen cases avoided dismissal only because the clients obtained new counsel after respondent had taken no action to prevent the dismissals.

Based upon 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) [Counts Four, Six]; failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) [Count Four]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 [Counts Four, Six]; failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [Counts One, Four, Six]; 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, Four]; failed to promptly render a full accounting of client funds or property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) [Count One]; failed to hold property of a client or third person funds in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) [Count One]; deposited funds in a trust account in excess of the amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f) [Count Two]; failed to deposit a legal fee paid in advance into a client trust account and withdrew unearned fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(g) [Count One]; knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) [Counts Three, Six]; failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process, in violation of MRPC 6.5(a) [Count Three]; knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Count Five]; engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) [All Counts]; 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 Two]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper 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]; 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) [Count Five].

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, effective August 29, 2025. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,985.09.

INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)

Angelina Cummins, P78867, Southfield, Interim Suspension—Effective August 7, 2025.

Respondent failed to appear before Tri-County Hearing Panel #55 for the July 23, 2025, hearing, and satisfactory proofs were entered into the record that she possessed actual notice of the proceedings. As a result, the hearing panel issued an Order of Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1) [Failure to Appear], effective August 7, 2025, and until further order of the panel or the Board.

TRANSFER TO INACTIVE STATUS (BY CONSENT)

David J. Gilbert, P56956, Mt. Pleasant, Inactive Status, Effective August 11, 2025.

The Grievance Administrator filed a Petition to Transfer to Inactive Status Pursuant to MCR 9.121(B)(1), alleging that respondent is incapacitated and is unable to continue to practice law due to a mental or physical infirmity or disability. The parties appeared before the panel for a hearing on July 28, 2025, at which time, and on the record, respondent consented to the entry of an order transferring him to inactive status, effective August 11, 2025, to allow him to complete the winding down of his practice. Respondent also agreed to assist the State Bar of Michigan Client Protection Fund should any claim for payment be made by the complainant.

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be transferred to inactive status until further order of the Attorney Discipline Board. No costs were assessed.

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND

Tracie R. Gittleman, P45176, Farmington Hills, Reprimand, Effective September 4, 2025.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, and based on the evidence presented by the parties at the hearings held in this matter, Tri-County Hearing Panel #51 found that respondent committed professional misconduct while acting as appointed appellate counsel for two criminal defendants, as set forth in Counts Two and Three of the formal complaint. Specifically, the panel found that respondent handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1(b); neglected a legal matter, 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; and, engaged in conduct that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4). The panel dismissed the charges in Count One of the formal complaint.

On August 13, 2025, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded, effective September 4, 2025. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,791.65.

1. Respondent explained that in 2014, she had just been promoted to a “level two” and was asked to take appointments from more counties. “She had no idea of the volume of cases that would be mailed to her and that she could not reject… Prior to that time, Ms. Gittleman only handled Oakland County appeals and would receive two to three a year. Ms. Gittleman was inexperienced with handling a higher appellate load and did not expect what did occur.” (Sanction Brief, p 5.)

2. Although the admonishment letter was not offered as an exhibit by the Grievance Administrator at the hearing, respondent acknowledged the existence of the admonishment letter in her brief on sanctions, and a copy of the letter was provided to the panel/Board on August 12, 2025.

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Charles G. Goedert, P39645, Kalkaska, Reprimand, Effective August 27, 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 Emmet County Hearing Panel #1. The stipulation contained respondent’s no contest pleas to the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-3, 4 as amended, 5-7, and 28-31, as well as the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in paragraph 34(j) of the formal complaint. Specifically, that respondent, after being overruled and disqualified by a higher court, sent a critical letter to the appellate judge. The stipulation further contained the parties’ agreement to dismiss, with prejudice, Counts One and Three through Six of the formal complaint, as well as paragraphs 27, 32-33, 34(a)-(i), and 34(k), as set forth in Count Two of the formal complaint.

Based upon respondent’s no contest pleas and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent initiated, permitted, or considered ex parte communications, or considered other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding, in violation of Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct 3A(4).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,148.20.

1. The parties agree that paragraph four should be amended to read: “Respondent is a Michigan attorney who was licensed in 1986 and resides in Kalkaska County.”

REPRIMAND WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)

Terri T. Macklin, P38785, Grand Rapids, Reprimand, Effective August 12, 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 Muskegon County Hearing Panel #3. The stipu lation contained respondent’s no contest pleas to the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-52 of the formal complaint, that involved a trust, estate planning and eventual probate court matter involving respondent’s client, with the exception of the allegations in paragraph 18, which the parties agreed, for purposes of the stipulation, that respondent did not personally have a client sign a mortgage or promissory note referenced in Count One, although she was aware of the contents of the mortgage and promissory note during the representation. The stipulation further contained respondent’s no contest plea to the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in paragraph 54 of the formal complaint, with the exception of 54(g), which the parties agreed to dismiss.

Based on respondent’s no contest pleas and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent entered into an agreement for, charged, and/or collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); failed to adequately communicate the basis or rate of the fee to her client, in violation of MRPC 1.5(b); entered or attempted to enter, into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client, where (1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquired the interest were not fair and reasonable to the client and were not fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner that could be reasonably understood by the client, (2) the client was not given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction, and/or (3) the client did not consent in writing thereto, in violation of MRPC 1.8(a); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal, or failed to correct a false statement of material fact or law she previously made to the tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1); offered evidence that she knew was false, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(3); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, or knowingly assisted or induced another to do so, or did so through the acts of another, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct that is 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 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 violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and required her to comply with a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,500.65.

1. With regard to the allegations in paragraph 18, the parties stipulated to the additional fact that respondent did not personally have Cheryl Scott sign the mortgage or promissory note referenced in Count One, although she was aware of the contents of the mortgage and promissory note during the representation.

2. The allegations in Counts Two and Three pertain only to Respondent Carrier and are not relevant to this report, so they will not be discussed here.

3. The stipulation indicates that the parties agree that although certain aspects of Respondent Macklin’s conduct were knowing as alleged in the formal complaint, her overall state of mind was that she was negligent as to the alleged violations of professional duties.

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)

Tyler N. Ross, P75530, Bloomfield Hills, Suspension—Three Years, Effective September 28, 2023.

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 #58. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions that he was convicted by guilty plea of one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, in violation of 18 USC § 371, a felony, in United States of America v Tyler N Ross, US District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-cr-20451. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended, effective September 28, 2023, the date of respondent’s conviction. 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, engaged in conduct involving a violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer, and constituted professional misconduct under MRPC 8.4(b).

The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for a period of three years. Costs were assessed in the amount of $892.38

1. The Sixth Circuit’s decision affirming the lower court’s decision was issued on March 31, 2025, and respondent was due to report to prison on May 20, 2025.

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS

Nicholas A. Tselepis, P80909, Caro, Suspension—30 Days, Effective August 27, 2025.

Based on the evidence presented at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, Upper Peninsula Hearing Panel #2 found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he was involved in an investigation of a criminal matter, and subsequently, in a published letter to an editor and email to the Menominee County Democratic Party listserv, made extrajudicial statements regarding that matter that he intended to be disseminated to the citizens of Menominee County. Specifically, the panel found that respondent violated MRPC 3.6(a) (4) and (5) because his letter to the editor and email contained statements referring to a criminal matter; referenced the character, credibility, and reputation of a party and an uncharged third party; referenced inadmissible evidence of a defendant’s past criminal record; and referred to the defendant’s guilt without a qualifying reference to his presumption of innocence.

The Panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days, effective August 27, 2025, and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $6,411.76.

1. ABA Standard 6.32 provides: “Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in communication with an individual in the legal system when the lawyer knows that such communication is improper and causes injury or potential injury to a party or causes interference or potential interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding.”

2. ABA Standard 6.23 provides that a reprimand “is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently fails to comply with a court order or rule and causes injury or potential injury to a client or other party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.” ABA Standard 6.24 provides that an admonition “is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in complying with a court order or rule and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes little or no actual or potential interference with a legal proceeding.”

3. Although the Formal Complaint does not specifically indicate which subsection of MRPC 3.6 is applicable, the language used references MRPC 3.6(a)(4) and (5). See Formal Complaint, paragraph 36(d).

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)

Doris Culver Vandenberg,1 P56828, Fruitport Suspension—60 Days, Effective August 13, 2025.

Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of a 60-Day Suspension and Restitution, which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Muskegon County Hearing Panel #2. The stipulation contained respondent’s no contest pleas to the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-18, 20, and 23-26, and the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in paragraphs 22(b)- (e), 27(a), and 27(c), of the formal complaint. Specifically, that respondent continued to collect $100 biweekly payments from a former client long after her services had concluded, including during a time period in which her license to practice law was suspended. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the remaining paragraphs of the formal complaint were dismissed.

Based on respondent’s no contest pleas and the amended stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when she collected a clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) [Count One]; failed to refund an unearned fee, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [Count One]; engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2) [Count One]; 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 accepted compensation in excess of a quantum meruit basis for legal services while suspended, in violation of MCR 9.119(F) [Count Two].

In accordance with the stipulation, the panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 60 days, effective August 13, 2025, and that she pay restitution totaling $22,050.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,246.52.

1. Also known as: Doris Day Winters, Doris M. Winters, Doris Marie Day-Winters, Doris Culber Day, Doris Culver Day and Doris Culver Vandenberg.

2. Although the amended stipulation is titled “Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of a 60-day [sic] Suspension with Conditions,” the only “conditions” relate to restitution and thus would have been more appropriately titled “Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of a 60-Day Suspension and Restitution.”

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

On July 22, 2025, Tri-County Hearing Panel #101 entered an Order of Suspension (By Consent) in this matter, suspending respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan for 30 days, effective August 1, 2025.

On August 25, 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 until reinstated. Counsel for the Grievance Administrator informed the Board’s staff that the Administrator has no objection to respondent’s reinstatement; and the Board being otherwise advised;

NOW THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent, James M. Poniewierski, P73652, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Tuesday, September 2, 2025.

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

On February 4, 2025, Tri-County Hearing Panel #55 entered an Order of Reprimand With Condition (By Consent) in this matter reprimanding respondent, effective February 26, 2025, and ordering that he pay costs totaling $787.20 on or before February 26, 2025. Respondent failed to timely pay his outstanding costs and was automatically suspended from the practice of law in Michigan pursuant to MCR 9.128(D), effective March 14, 2025 and until the costs were paid in full, a suitable payment plan was approved by the Attorney Discipline Board, and until respondent complied with MCR 9.119 and 9.123(A). On March 26, 2025, respondent paid his outstanding costs in full and a certification of payment was issued by the Board.

On August 5, 2025, respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A), attesting that he has fully complied with all requirements of both the panel’s order and the Notice of Automatic Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.128, and will continue to comply until and unless reinstated. Counsel for the Grievance Administrator informed the Board’s staff that the Administrator has no objection to respondent’s reinstatement; and the Board being otherwise advised;

NOW THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Dustin T. Wachler, P78656, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Wednesday, August 13, 2025.