SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION
Angelina Cummins, P78867, Southfield, Suspension — Two Years, Effective September 26, 20251
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #55 found that respondent committed professional misconduct during her representation of a client in a post- divorce custody and/or support matter, and by failing to answer a request for investigation.
Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint and her default was entered by the Grievance Administrator on April 15, 2025. Based on respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing panel found that respondent neglected a client matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [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 expedite litigation, in violation of MRPC 3.2 [Count One]; knowingly 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 violates the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) [Count Two]; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) [Count One]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) [Count Two] 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 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(A) and (B)(2) [Count Two].
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for two years and that she pay restitution in the amount of $6,000.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,001.74.
1. On August 7, 2025, Respondent’s license to practice law was suspended on an interim basis pursuant to MCR 9.115(H), for her failure to appear at the misconduct hearing. See Notice of Interim Suspension issued August 11, 2025.STATE OF MICHIGAN
2. On July 31, 2025, the hearing panel issued an order suspending respondent from the practice law based on his failure to appear at the public hearing. That suspension went into effect on August 7, 2025. Please see Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), issued August 11, 2025.
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
David M. Sinutko, P52801, Utica Reprimand, Effective September 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 Tri-County Hearing Panel #102. Respondent pled no contest to the factual allegations set forth in the formal complaint, namely that respondent’s IOLTA became overdrawn, after more than $54,000 in transactions were presented without sufficient funds, resulting in overdrafts of over $27,000 and $26,000. Although many of the transactions were dishonored, respondent later deposited funds to cover them and self-reported the overdrafts, attributing them to a clerical error. It was later discovered that the transactions were connected to an online gambling platform, and that between January 2023 and February 2024, respondent misused his IOLTA by depositing personal funds, leaving earned fees in the account, using it to pay personal and business expenses, and engaging in gambling-related transactions.
Based on respondent’s no contest pleas and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent deposited personal funds into an IOLTA, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); deposited personal funds into an IOLTA in excess of an amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees or to obtain a waiver of service charges or fees in violation of MRPC 1.15(f); 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); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and required him to comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $935.99.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Carl D. Winekoff, P76862, Phoenix, Arizona Suspension — 60 Days, Effective October 3, 2025
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of a 60-Day Suspension on September 2, 2025, which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #63. The amended stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted on May 31, 2024, of one count of aggravated assault, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC 750.81A, in a matter titled People v Carl Douglas Winekoff, Wayne County Circuit Court, Case No. 23- 006231-02-FH. The stipulation also contained respondent’s no contest plea to the allegation that his conduct constituted professional misconduct under MCR 9.104(5) and MRPC 8.4(b).
Based on respondent’s admission, no contest plea, 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 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 amended stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 60 days, effective October 3, 2025. Costs were assessed in the amount of $771.44.
1. Standard 5.11 addresses 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.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Christopher J. Woolf, P79877, Dewitt, Effective August 7, 2025
On August 7, 2025, respondent was convicted by guilty verdict of Child Sexually Abusive Activity, a felony under MCL 750.145C(2); Computers - Using to Commit a Crime - Maximum Imprisonment of 20 Years or More or Life, a felony under MCL 752.7973F; Children - Accosting Immoral, a felony under MCL 750.145A-A; and, Computers - Using to Commit a Crime - Max Imprisonment of Four Years or More but Less Than 10 Years, a felony under MCL 752.7973D, in State of Michigan v Christopher James Woolf, 30th Circuit - Ingham County Circuit Court, Case No. 24-000182-FH-C30. 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).
REINSTATEMENT
On August 5, 2025, Upper Peninsula Hearing Panel #2 entered an Order of Suspension with Conditions in this matter suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 30 days, effective August 27, 2025. On September 22, 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, Nicholas A. Tselepis, P 80909, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective September 30, 2025.