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

John F. Calvin, P74477, West Bloomfield, Interim Suspension, Effective October 30, 2025.

Respondent failed to appear before Tri-County Hearing Panel #62 for an October 20, 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 30, 2025, and until further order of the panel or the Board.

SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)

Richard Daniel Dorfman, P80980, Boca Raton, Florida. Suspension — Three Years, Effective November 26, 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 #15. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted as set forth in the notice of filing of judgment of conviction, and that his conviction constitutes professional misconduct, in violation of MCR 9.104(5) and MRPC 8.4(b). In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended, effective December 10, 2024, 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 and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $948.38.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Ibrahim Y. Hammoud, P75765, Troy. Reprimand, Effective November 5, 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 #13. Respondent admitted all of the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct in the formal complaint, namely that respondent, during his representation of a client in a personal injury matter stemming from a traffic accident, failed to timely respond to opposing counsel’s discovery requests, failed to include names and contact information for all of his client’s service, medical providers, and employers in response to request for admissions, and failed to provide an executed medical records authorization, which resulted in his client’s first party claims being dismissed.

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); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a 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; knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); failed to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party, in violation of MRPC 3.4(d); failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that a person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 5.3(b); engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation MRPC 8.4(c) and 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 panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $762.14.

AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION

Ziad Mahmood Khalel, PL1108, Sterling Heights. Effective October 20, 2025.

On October 20, 2025, respondent was convicted by guilty plea of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, a felony, under 18 USC §§ 1347 and 1349, in U.S.A. v Ziad Khalel, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-cr-20022. 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).

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Amy L. Klann, P 83831, Dryden. Reprimand, Effective October 30, 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 #73. Based on respondent’s plea of no contest and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent committed misconduct in connection with her representation of a client in a property-line dispute with a neighbor and the subsequent case filed in Washtenaw County Circuit Court.

Specifically, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a 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 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 take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests by surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of the fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); and, failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client, in violation of MRPC 3.2. The panel found respondent’s conduct to have also violated MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $762.14.

SUSPENSION

John Lawrence McDonough, P68576, Three Rivers. Suspension — Two Years, Effective January 11, 2027.¹

The Grievance Administrator filed a combined notice of filing of judgment of conviction (Case No. 25-43-JC) and formal complaint (Case No. 25-44-GA), charging that respondent committed acts of professional misconduct warranting discipline. Specifically, the notice of filing of judgment of conviction alleged that respondent was convicted by guilty plea of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, 2nd offense, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625(6)(b), in People of the State of Michigan v John Lawrence McDonough, Case No. 24-1950-SD-1, 3B District Court-St. Joseph. The formal complaint portion of the complaint alleged that respondent did not report his conviction to the Grievance Administrator, and that he failed to file an answer to the request for investigation. Respondent did not file an answer to complaint, and a default was entered.

Based on respondent’s default, the panel found that respondent had been convicted of the criminal offense, as alleged, and that respondent failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); 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); engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4); failed to answer a Request for Investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(B)(2); and, failed to report a criminal conviction to the Grievance Administrator and the Attorney Discipline Board in writing within 14 days after the conviction, in violation of MCR 9.120(A)(1).

The Panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for two years. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,795.82

1. Respondent’s suspension shall be served consecutively to the two-year suspension (effective January 11, 2025), ordered in Grievance Administrator v John Lawrence McDonough, 24-27-MZ (Ref. 22-83-JC); 24-45-GA.

2. Respondent’s license to practice law has been continuously suspended since January 11, 2025. See, Notice of Suspension With Conditions, Grievance Administrator v John Lawrence McDonough, 24-27-MZ (Ref. 22-83-JC); 24-45-GA.

3. 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 Administrator’s argument 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.

4. ABA Standard 8.1 states:

Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer:

(a) intentionally or knowingly violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession; or

(b) has been suspended for the same or similar misconduct, and intentionally or knowingly engages in further similar acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession.

However, counsel for the Grievance Administrator noted that Standard 8.1(b) is not “rigidly applied.” (Tr 08/05/25, p 21.)

5. As set forth by counsel for the Grievance Administrator at the sanction hearing, pursuant to Grievance Administrator v Deborah Carson, 00-175-GA (ADB 2001), the minimum appropriate sanction to be imposed in this case would be 180 days, due to Respondent’s failure to answer the formal complaint and appear at the hearing. However, given the factors set forth above, the Panel believes that a two-year

REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Daniel J. Parish, P85014, Kingwood, Texas. Reprimand, Effective November 1, 2025.

Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of a Discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #9. Based on respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent committed misconduct in connection with his representation of a client in a personal injury action.

Specifically, the panel found that respondent entered into a fee agreement for an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); entered into a contingent fee agreement that exceeded the maximum allowable fee of one-third of the net amount recovered for personal injury or wrongful death claims, in violation of MCR 8.121(A) & (B), and MRPC 1.5(c); entered into a contingent fee agreement that provided for computation of the contingent fee on the basis of the gross sum recovered, rather than the net sum recovered after deducting all disbursements properly chargeable to the enforcement of the claim, in violation of MCR 8.121(C); represented a client when the representation of that client was materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b); and, failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process, in violation of MRPC 6.5(a). The panel also found that respondent’s conduct violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3), MRPC 8.4(a) and (c).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and required to comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $793.48.

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS

Craig A. Tank, P 58360, St. Clair Shores. Suspension – Four Years, Effective March 1, 2025.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, based on respondent’s plea of no contest to all twelve of the counts in the formal complaint, that respondent committed professional misconduct in eleven separate client matters and when he failed to cooperate with the Administrator’s investigation. Count One involved his representation of a criminal defendant, and the failure to inform his client that his law license was going to be suspended. Counts Two, Three, and Ten all involved conduct related to respondent’s representation of three separate criminal defendants and the filing of motions for relief from judgment under MCR 6.500. Count Four involved conduct related to a client’s appeal of a district court sentence. Count Five involved respondent’s conduct in a case where he was contacted by a woman to discuss her husband’s potential entry into an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program. Count Six involved respondent’s representation of an incarcerated criminal defendant charged with fleeing and eluding. Count Seven involved respondent’s conduct during his representation of a client in a federal conspiracy to commit armed robbery case. Count Eight involved respondent’s conduct related to a client’s intoxicated driving case. Count Nine involved conduct during respondent’s representation of an incarcerated individual charged with several serious crimes. Count Eleven involved respondent’s conduct during his representation of a criminal defendant in a larceny case. Count Twelve involved respondent’s failure to answer several requests for investigation.

The panel found through respondent’s plea of no contest that he neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (Counts One-Eleven); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) (Counts One-Eleven); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3 (Counts One-Eleven); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (Counts One-Eleven); created a conflict of interest, and failed to detail the conflict or seek consent after consultation, in violation of MRPC 1.7 (Count Five); misappropriated funds by failing to deposit them in an IOLTA and withdraw them as earned, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) and (g) (Count Eleven); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation, such as failing to refund any advance payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (Counts One-Eleven); engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out as an attorney to practice in the Eastern District of Michigan, in violation of MRPC 5.5(b)(2) (Count Seven); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (Count Twelve); 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) (Counts One-Eleven); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) (Counts One-Twelve); 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- Twelve); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (Counts One-Twelve); made a knowing misrepresentation of facts or circumstances surrounding a request for investigation or complaint, in violation of MCR 9.104(6) (Counts One, Two, and Eleven); failed to timely answer a request for investigation in the time permitted, in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(7) and MCR 9.113(B)(2) (Count Twelve); and violated an order of discipline by holding himself out as a lawyer after a suspension, in violation of MCR 9.104(9) and MCR 9.119(E) (Count One).

The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, effective March 1, 2025, to allow respondent additional time to wrap up his practice. Respondent was also ordered to pay restitution totaling $21,400.

Respondent timely filed a petition for review and after proceedings pursuant to MCR 9.118, the Board decreased respondent’s discipline from disbarment to a four-year suspension, affirmed the restitution requirement, and added conditions relevant to the established misconduct.

Respondent timely filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to MCR 9.118(E). On October 14, 2025, the Board entered an order denying respondent’s motion for reconsideration. Costs were assessed in the amount of $10,145.80.

1. See Grievance Administrator v Craig A. Tank, 16-19-JC; 16-20-GA.

2. A “6.500 motion” is based on Michigan Court Rule 6.500, and allows a defendant to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence after all direct appeals have been exhausted.

3. Standard 4.61 provides that “[d]isbarment 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.” Standard 7.1 states that “[d]isbarment 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.”

4. For example, in Count One, the representation at issue was from approximately May 2017 to September 2017. Respondent was served with the request for investigation (RI) on October 25, 2017, which he answered on November 30, 2017 – five years prior to the filing of the formal complaint. In Count Two, the representation began in June 2018, respondent was served the RI on December 11, 2019, and he filed his answer on January 30, 2020 – nearly three years prior to the formal complaint. In Count Three, the misconduct occurred between September 2018 to December 2018; respondent was served with the RI on June 19, 2019, and he filed his answer on August 7, 2019 — over three years prior to the formal complaint. In Count Five, the representation lasted for approximately two weeks in May of 2019, and respondent answered the RI on September 26, 2019; and in Count Six, the misconduct occurred between June 2019 and September 2019, and respondent answered the RI on December 18, 2019 — again, at least three years prior to formal discipline charges.

5. In other jurisdictions, delays in disciplinary proceedings have been considered sufficient mitigation to warrant a decrease in the discipline imposed. See generally Florida Bar v Marcus, 616 So2d 975 (Fla 1993) (attorney suspended for three years rather than disbarred, in part because of a several-year interval involved in resolving charges against attorney); Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v Guidry, 571 So2d 161 (La 1990) (lawyer who committed misconduct by commingling and converting client funds suspended for six months due in part to three-year delay in bringing charges); Florida Bar v Thomson, 429 So2d 2 (Fla 1983) (unexplained delay mitigated suspension to reprimand); LSBA v Edwards, 387 So2d 1137 (La 1980) (inordinate delays are unfair and unjust to an accused attorney and serve as punishment themselves over and above that imposed by the court); Vaughn v State Bar, 511 P2d 1158 (Cal 1973) (four-year delay in prosecution mitigated suspension to reprimand); Arden v State Bar of California, 341 P2d 6 (Cal 1959) (suspension mitigated down to a public reprimand where the proceedings had been “hanging over the [attorney’s] head” for more than 3 years).

6. Respondent paid the full amount of restitution on March 11, 2025.

ORDER IMPOSING NO DISCIPLINE

Donald R. Visser, P27961, Kentwood. Order Imposing No Discipline, Effective November 8, 2025.

In reciprocal discipline proceedings pursuant to MCR 9.120(C), the Grievance Administrator filed a certified copy of an opinion and order issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan Southern Division, finding that both respondents violated Rule 4.2(a) of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. The District Court imposed a formal order of reprimand as to each respondent.

An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was served upon each respondent on September 10, 2024. Respondents each filed an identical timely objection to the imposition of discipline in Michigan, and Ingham County Hearing Panel #4 was assigned to consider the matters, pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(3). Respondents also requested a hearing. On October 9, 2024, the Grievance Administrator filed identical replies to both respondents’ objections. Since both actions involved substantial and controlling common questions of law and fact, the Attorney Discipline Board issued an order of consolidating the matters on December 4, 2024.

After further briefing by the parties and proceedings conducted in accordance with MCR 9.115, the panel determined that, even though the disciplinary order of the United States District Court was conclusive proof of misconduct, because the panel did believe that respondents had actually violated MRPC 4.2(a), that the imposition of comparable discipline of a reprimand would have been inappropriate.

The panel concluded that the consolidated cases warranted the entry of an order which imposed no discipline. Actual costs were assessed in the amount of $644.08, with each respondent ordered to pay one half, $322.04 each.

1. The order of discipline imposing no discipline will reflect that respondents are each ordered to pay one half of the total actual costs incurred, as referenced above, in the amount of $322.04.

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION

Thomas J. Wilson, P33071, Lexington. Suspension — Two Years, Effective November 14, 2025.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #54 found that respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client, when he failed to comply with the conditions of his prior suspension from the practice of law and the requirements of MCR 9.119, and when he failed to answer a request for investigation.

Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint and his default was entered by the Grievance Administrator on May 13, 2025. Based on respondent’s default, the hearing 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 his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of 1.4(a) [Count One]; entered into an agreement for, charged, and/or collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) [Count One]; failed to take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests upon termination of representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [Count One]; 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) [Counts One, Two and Three]; 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, Two and Three]; 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, Two and Three]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [Counts One, Two and Three]; 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]; failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Counts Two and Three]; violated an order of discipline, in violation of MCR 9.104(9) [Count Two]; failed to comply with MCR 9.119, including by a) failing to properly notify clients, courts, and opposing parties of his suspension, b) failing to provide proof to the Grievance Administrator of his compliance with MCR 9.119, and c) holding himself out as an attorney, in violation of MCR 9.119 [Count Two]; and failed to answer a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(B)(2) [Count Three].

The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for two years and that he pay restitution in the amount of $750.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,866.88.

REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Brandon T. Wolfe, P 82421, Troy. Reprimand, Effective November 13, 2025.

Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of a Discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #65. Based on parties’ stipulation for consent discipline and respondent’s pleas of no contest therein, the panel found that respondent committed misconduct by mishandling funds in his IOLTA.

Specifically, the panel found that respondent failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from his own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); and, deposited his own funds in a client trust account in excess of an amount necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees or to obtain a waiver of serve charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f). The panel also found that respondent’s conduct violated MCR 9.104(2)-(4).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and required to comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $761.82.

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

On July 2, 2025, the Attorney Discipline Board issued an Order Reducing Suspension from 180 Days to 90 Days and Affirming Conditions, suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 90 days, effective July 31, 2025. On October 22, 2025, respondent, Jason Kolkema, submitted an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A), attesting that he has fully complied with all requirements of the Order Reducing Suspension from 180 Days to 90 Days and Affirming Conditions and will continue to comply with the order until and unless reinstated. On Monday, October 27, 2025, 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, Jason Kolkema, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective October 29, 2025.