DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION
Robert A. Canner, P11572, Southfield. Disbarment, Effective April 16, 2025.
Based on the evidence presented to Tri-County Hearing Panel #59 at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct by intentionally misappropriating clients’ funds, failing to keep two separate clients properly informed as to the status of their matters, and failing to protect another client’s interest at the conclusion of his representation.
Specifically, the panel found that respondent violated MRPC 1.4(a) by not keeping clients reasonably informed and promptly complying with requests for information [Counts Two and Three]; MRPC 1.5(a), by collecting an excessive fee [Counts One and Two]; MRPC 1.5(c), by failing to put a contingent-fee agreement in writing, and failing to state the method by which the fee is to be determined [Count Two]; MRPC 1.15(b)(3), by failing to promptly pay funds to various clients who were entitled to the funds [Counts One, Two, and Three]; MRPC 1.15(d), by failing to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from his own property [Counts One, Two, and Three]; MRPC 1.15(f), by failing to deposit his own funds in a client trust account only 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 [Count One]; MRPC 1.16(d), by failing upon termination of representation, to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests [Count Two]; MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4), by engaging in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct [Counts One, Two, and Three]; MRPC 8.4(b), by engaging 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 [Counts One, Two, and Three]; MCR 9.104(2), by engaging in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach [Counts One, Two, and Three]; and MCR 9.104(3), by engaging in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals [Counts One, Two, and Three].
The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, effective April 16, 2025, and that he pay restitution totaling $59,836.00. Costs were assessed by the panel in the amount of $3,880.08.
On April 14, 2025, respondent timely filed a petition for review. After proceedings pursuant to MCR 9.118, the Board affirmed the hearing panel’s Order of Disbarment and Restitution in its entirety. Additional costs of $192.50 were assessed by the Board for the review hearing conducted on July 9, 2025, bring the total costs assessed in this matter to $4,096.84.
1. The panel made numerous findings of misconduct against respondent and found that many other rules were violated in Counts One through Three. However, in that respondent is only challenging the sanction imposed, we find it unnecessary to recite an exhaustive list of all of the panel’s findings in that regard. Further, the panel did dismiss Counts Four and Five of the formal complaint, finding that the allegations in Count Four were redundant of the other charges and that the Grievance Administrator did not establish misconduct in Count Five. The Grievance Administrator has not sought review of the dismissal of those counts.
2. In Lawrence, the Court reversed the Board’s order increasing discipline from a 100-day suspension to disbarment, affirming the restitution provision and vacating the conditions imposed by the hearing panel and reinstated the hearing panel’s order of a 100-day suspension and restitution with condition, for conduct that violated MRPC 1.15(b)(3), (d) and (g); MRPC 8.4(b) and MCR 9.104(1)-(3).
3. ABA Standards 9.32(a) - absence of a prior disciplinary history; 9.32(d) - good faith timely efforts to make restitution; 9.32(e) - full and free disclosure to a disciplinary agency; and 9.32(g) - evidence of good character or reputation.
4 ABA Standard 4.61 states that: disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious injury or potential serious injury to a client.
ABA Standard 5.11 states that:
(a) 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, (b) 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.
ABA Standard 7.1 states that:
disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)
Daniel Reid Casey, P75533, Sault Ste. Marie. Interim Suspension — Effective October 17, 2025.
Respondent failed to appear before Emmet County Hearing Panel #2 for the October 9, 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 October 17, 2025, and until further order of the panel or the Board.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Amy Lillian Colston, P64742, Kalamazoo. Suspension — One Year, Effective October 25, 2025.
The Grievance Administrator filed a notice of filing of reciprocal discipline pursuant to MCR 9.120(C) that attached certified copies of orders entered by the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department on October 25, 2017, and February 2, 2018, that suspended respondent’s license to practice law in New York on an interim basis as a result of her conviction, effective October 25, 2017, and then for one year, effective October 25, 2017, respectively, in matters titled Matter of Amy Vichinsky, an Attorney and Matter of Amy Vichinsky, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent, Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner. The notice also attached a certified copy of an order entered by the Supreme Court of California on February 13, 2020, that disbarred respondent from practicing law in the State of California, effective March 15, 2019, in a matter titled In re Amy Lillian Vichinsky, SBC-19-N-30499; SBC-19-O-30501.1
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which had been approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission. After reviewing the parties’ stipulation, Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #2 communicated in writing to the parties pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5)(c)(ii) that it had questions for the Grievance Administrator relative to the stipulation; counsel for the Grievance Administrator filed a response. The hearing panel considered the stipulation as well as the additional information provided, and concluded that the parties’ agreement was reasonable and consistent with the goals of these discipline proceedings.
Based upon the certified copies of the order of one-year suspension issued by the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, the order of disbarment issued by the Supreme Court of the State of California, and respondent’s acknowledgments as set forth in the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent committed misconduct, as set forth in MCR 9.120(C)(1), and ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for a period of one-year, effective October 25, 2025, as agreed to by the parties and accepted by the panel. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,115.58.
1. In the 2018 New York matter and the 2020 California matter, respondent’s last name at the time was Vichinsky; however, her State Bar of Michigan record indicates her last name is now Colston.
2. On July 11, 2024, respondent filed a motion to extend the deadline for her response to the imposition of reciprocal discipline. The motion was granted on August 28, 2024, and respondent was given an additional 21 days in which to file her response.
3. The hearing on discipline was rescheduled for June 16, 2025. Just prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties’ stipulation was filed. As a result, the panel adjourned the hearing after a brief discussion on the record, so that they could review the stipulation. (Tr 6/16/25, pp 6-9.)
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)
Zachary Hallman, P78327, Dearborn. Suspension — 30 Days, Effective December 1, 2025.1
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 #17. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct in the formal complaint, namely that respondent, after filing a complaint on behalf of a client in a wrongful termination/employment discrimination case, failed to serve the complaint on the named defendant, which resulted in the court dismissing the case without prejudice and denying a subsequent motion to reinstate. Respondent also filed a claim of appeal on behalf of the client, which was dismissed because it was not timely filed.
Based upon respondent’s admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent: failed to provide competent representation to his client, in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek lawful objectives of client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and, or failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client, in violation of MRPC 3.2; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1); 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 hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days, effective December 1, 2025, that he pay restitution totaling $500, and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,328.04.
1. The hearing panel found that there was sufficient good cause for the suspension of respondent’s license to become effective on December 1, 2025, as agreed to by the parties, to allow time for respondent to obtain coverage for his practice during the period of suspension.
REPRIMAND
Brian Emmanuel Jorde, P70620, Omaha. Reprimand, Effective October 10, 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 of Reprimand entered by the Iowa Supreme Court on June 19, 2025, in Board v Brian Emmanuel Jorde, Iowa Supreme Court Case 25-0917.
An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the Board and served on the parties on July 10, 2025, ordering the parties to inform the Board in writing, within 21 days from service of the order, (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 set forth in the Board’s order expired without objection or request for hearing by either party.
On September 11, 2025, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that respondent be reprimanded, effective October 10, 2025. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,512.38.
SUSPENSION
Marsha M. Lang, P42392, Roosevelt, Utah. Suspension — Two Years, Effective October 10, 2025.1
In a reciprocal discipline proceeding filed pursuant to MCR 9.120(C), the Grievance Administrator filed a certified copy of a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Discipline: Suspension, entered on April 30, 2025, in a matter titled In the Matter of the Discipline of Marsha M. Lang #4995, Eighth Judicial District Court of Utah, Case No. 240905255.
An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the Board and served on the parties on July 10, 2025, ordering the parties to inform the Board in writing, within 21 days from service of the order, (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 set forth in the Board’s order expired without objection or request for hearing by either party.
On September 11, 2025, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for two years. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,522.52.
1. Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since May 1, 2005. See Notice of Three-Month Suspension (By Consent) dated February 2, 2006, in Grievance Administrator v Marsha M. Lang, 05-81-RD.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Joseph Anthony Paparella, P64848, Grand Rapids. Suspension — 30 Days, Effective August 30, 2024.1
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of 30-day Suspension, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Kent County Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted by jury verdict on August 30, 2024, of assault with a dangerous weapon (a felony) and reckless driving (a misdemeanor), in violation of MCL 750.82 and MCL 257.626, in State of Michigan v Joseph Anthony Paparella, Kent County Circuit Court, Case No. 23-03822-FH. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended, effective August 30, 2024, the date of respondent’s felony conviction.
Based on respondent’s admissions 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 30 days, effective August 30, 2024, the date of respondent’s automatic interim suspension from the practice of law in Michigan for his felony conviction. Costs were assessed in the amount of $769.68.
1. On October 7, 2025, Respondent was reinstated to the practice of law in Michigan, see Order of Reinstatement.
2. Although not cited by the parties in the stipulation, we also consider illegal conduct [9.22(k)] as an aggravating factor here.
3. When asked by the panel as to why respondent’s physical disability should be considered in mitigation, respondent’s counsel indicated in the parties’ joint response that “while Mr. Paparella is permanently physically disabled, it does not need to be considered in mitigation and can be omitted.”
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Brandon K. Reed, P83861, Lansing. Reprimand — Effective October 3, 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 Livingston County Hearing Panel #1. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that on July 23, 2024, he was convicted by guilty plea of Operating While Impaired by Liquor, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257-6253- A, in State of Michigan v Brandon Keith Reed, 43rd Judicial District Court, Case No. 24H-0164.
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 $975.68.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Michael J. Szappan, P68107, Flushing. Reprimand, Effective October 7, 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 Genesee County Hearing Panel #2. Respondent pled no contest to the factual allegations and grounds for discipline set forth in paragraphs 1-4, 16-17, 21 as amended,1 43, 45-46, 51(c) and 51(f) of the formal complaint, namely that respondent, while working as an assistant prosecutor on a criminal case, failed to provide discovery related to the defendant’s cell phone(s), which resulted in a mistrial, and following his termination, sent several unprofessional text messages to then-elected prosecutor. The stipulation further contained the parties’ agreement that the following are dismissed: paragraphs 5-15, 18-42, 44, 47-50, and 51(a), (b), (d), (e), and (g).
Based upon respondent’s no contest plea and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to treat all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect, in violation of MRPC 6.5(a), 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. Costs were assessed in the amount of $936.84.
1. Paragraph 21 as originally alleged was dismissed as agreed, and replaced with the amended version to which respondent plead no contest.
2. The parties agree that paragraph 21 should be amended to “[a]fter an in-chambers meeting during the trial regarding defendant’s cell phone download not being provided to defense counsel, the court granted defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial.”
REINSTATEMENT
On May 1, 2024, the Attorney Discipline Board entered an Order Affirming Hearing Panel Order of 90-Day Suspension in this matter, suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 90 days, effective May 23, 2024. On March 25, 2025, respondent timely filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court pursuant to MCR 9.122(A). On June 27, 2025, the Court issued an order denying respondent’s application for leave to appeal. As a result, the order of suspension became effective on July 19, 2025.
On October 10, 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, Wayne F. Crowe, P 77374 is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective October 21, 2025.
REINSTATEMENT
On September 24, 2024, Tri-County Hearing Panel #10 entered an Order of Suspension with Conditions (By Consent) in this matter suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 179 days, effective immediately, ordering him to comply with conditions, and pay costs in the amount of $2,130.80. The Board entered an order on October 25, 2024, granting respondent’s request for a payment plan. On October 13, 2025, respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A), attesting that he has fully complied with all requirements of the panel’s order and will continue to comply with the order until and unless reinstated. The Board was advised that the Grievance Administrator has no objection to the affidavit; and the Board being otherwise advised;
NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Gerard J. Garno, P62106, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective October 15, 2025.
REINSTATEMENT
On January 9, 2025, Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #1 entered an Order of Suspension With Conditions (By Consent) in this matter, suspending respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan for 30 days, effective January 31, 2025.
On September 16, 2025, respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A), attesting that she has fully complied with all requirements of the panel’s order, and will continue to comply until reinstated. No objection pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) was received by the Board from Grievance Administrator within the seven-day window; and the Board being otherwise advised; NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Rebecca L. McCluskey, P78345, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective Tuesday, October 7, 2025.
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.
REINSTATEMENT
On July 22, 2025, Muskegon County Hearing Panel #2 entered an Order of Suspension and Restitution (By Consent) in this matter, suspending respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan for 60 days, effective August 13, 2025.
On October 6, 2025, respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A), attesting that she 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, Doris Culver Vandenberg, P 56828, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective October 13, 2025.
1. To date, respondent has also been known as: Doris Day Winters, Doris M. Winters, Doris Marie Day-Winters, Doris Culber Day, Doris Culver Day, and Doris Culver Vandenberg.
HEARING ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
Notice is given that Peter T. Howe (P57973), 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 Peter T. Howe (P57973), ADB Case No. 25-82-RP.
On March 9, 2011, Petitioner was convicted in the Oakland County Circuit Court, of larceny by conversion $1,000 to $20,000, a felony, contrary to MCL 750.362. Petitioner’s conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(5). Based on Petitioner’s felony conviction, the hearing panel ordered that his license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for two and half years, retroactive to March 9, 2011, the date of his conviction. On November 21, 2011, the Grievance Administrator filed a petition for review, seeking an increase in discipline. Prior to the scheduled review hearing before the Board, the Grievance Administrator and the Petitioner stipulated that the matter should be remanded to the hearing panel for further consideration in conjunction with a newly filed reciprocal discipline proceeding based upon an order of discipline entered in the state of Illinois (ADB Case No. 12-22-RD). On April 17, 2012, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F) (5), the parties filed a stipulation for consent order of discipline which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based on the agreement of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that Petitioner be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan effective March 9, 2011, the date of his felony conviction.
The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the reinstatement petition to Emmet County Hering Panel #1. A Zoom hearing is scheduled for Monday, January 5, 2025, at 10:30 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.