SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
Daniel J. Andoni, P67098, Flint. Suspension, 60 Days, Effective February 23, 2024
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of a 60-Day Suspension With Restitution, which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Genesee County Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct in the formal complaint. Based on respondent’s admissions, the panel found that respondent committed misconduct in connection with his representation of a client in a custody matter (Count One) and for his failure to provide the Grievance Administrator with an answer to the Request for Investigation (Count Two).
Based on 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) [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 refund an advance payment of fee that has not been earned upon termination of representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [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]; and, failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2), in violation of MCR 9.104(7) [Count Two]. The panel found that respondent’s conduct also violated MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1)-(3) [Counts One and Two].
In accordance with the stipulation, the panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 60 days, effective February 23, 2024, as agreed to by the parties, and that he pay restitution totaling $1,250.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $794.12.
1. Respondent’s license to practice law was further suspended for 180 days and he was ordered to pay restitution in a separate, unrelated disciplinary matter, Grievance Administrator v Daniel J. Andoni, 24-93-GA, also effective February 23, 2024. See Notice of Suspension and Restitution (By Consent) issued on April 17, 2025. As a result of the length of that suspension, respondent must comply with the requirements of MCR 9.123(B) and (C) and MCR 9.124 to be reinstated to the practice of law rather than MCR 9.123(A)
SUSPENSION
Daniel Reid Casey, P75533, Sault Ste. Marie. Suspension — One Year, Effective October 17, 2025.
The Grievance Administrator filed a combined notice of filing of judgment of conviction (Case No. 25-68-JC) and formal complaint (Case No. 25-69-GA), charging that respondent committed acts of professional misconduct warranting discipline. Specifically, the notice, filed in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3), advised that respondent was convicted by guilty plea of operating a motor vehicle while impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.6253A, in People v Daniel Reid Casey, Case No. 24-68099-SD-1, 91st District Court. The formal complaint alleged that respondent committed professional misconduct by failing to provide notice of his conviction to the Attorney Discipline Board and Attorney Grievance Commission as required by MCR 9.120(A)(1), and by failing to answer a request for investigation.
Respondent did not file an answer to the formal complaint, and his default was entered by the Grievance Administrator on September 9, 2025. Thereafter, respondent failed to appear at the hearing conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115 and 9.120, and the panel entered an order of interim suspension pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), suspending respondent’s license to practice law, effective October 17, 2025.
After the proceedings concluded, Emmet County Hearing Panel #2 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 pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5) and MRPC 8.4(b).
With regard to the formal complaint, the panel found, based on respondent’s default and evidence presented at the hearing, that respondent knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); failed to answer the request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2), and in violation of MCR 9.104(7); engaged in conduct that is a violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of 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); 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).
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for one year, effective October 17, 2025, the date of his interim suspension for failing to appear at the hearing. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,121.70.
1. On October 10, 2025, the hearing panel issued an order suspending respondent from the practice of law based on his failure to appear at the public hearing. That suspension went into effect on October 17, 2025. Please see, Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), issued October 20, 2025.
2. MCR 9.120(B) does not require a respondent to file a written response to a notice of filing of judgment of conviction, a point conceded by the Grievance Administrator at the prehearing conference. Thus, the default was only applicable to the formal complaint portion of the complaint.
AMENDED SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION1 (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 by guilty plea of Vehicular homicide, a second-degree felony, in violation of F82.071(i)(a) in State of Florida v Richard Dorfman, Case No. 2023-CF-007041-AMB, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach Florida 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.
1. Amended only to include the specifics of respondent’s conviction.
TRANSFER TO DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS
Byron E. Siegel, P20428, Bingham Farms Disability Inactive Status, Effective December 23, 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 issued by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Arizona, transferring respondent to disability inactive status, effective January 23, 2025, in a matter titled In the Matter of a Suspended Member of the State Bar of Arizona Byron E. Siegel, Case No. PDJ 2024-9105-D.
The Attorney Discipline Board issued an order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline, ordering the parties, within 21 days from service of the order, to inform the Board in writing (i) of any objection to a transfer to disability inactive status in Michigan based on the grounds set forth in MCR 9.120(C)(1) and (ii) whether a hearing is requested.
Respondent sent an email to the Board’s case manager objecting to his transfer to disability inactive status based on the grounds set forth in MCR 9.120(C)(1) and requesting a hearing. Thereafter, the Board assigned this matter to Tri-County Hearing Panel #3 for disposition, pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(3). The Grievance Administrator filed a response to respondent’s objection to the transfer to disability inactive status. After further briefing was requested by the panel and provided by the parties, the panel determined that a hearing was not necessary and that respondent failed to satisfy his burden of showing that his transfer to disability inactive status in Michigan would be clearly inappropriate.
On December 23, 2025, the panel issued an order transferring respondent to disability inactive status pursuant to MCR 9.120(C) and MCR 9.121(A), effective immediately and until respondent is reinstated in accordance with MCR 9.121(E). No costs were assessed.
1. MCR 9.120(C)(1) provides: “A certified copy of a final adjudication by any court of record or any body authorized by law or by rule of court to conduct disciplinary proceedings against attorneys by any state or territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, a United States court, or a federal administrative agency, determining that an attorney, whether or not admitted in that jurisdiction, has committed misconduct or has been transferred to disability inactive status, shall establish conclusively the misconduct or the disability for purposes of a proceeding under subchapter 9.100 of these rules and comparable discipline or transfer shall be imposed in the Michigan proceeding unless the respondent was not afforded due process of law in the course of the original proceedings, the imposition of comparable discipline or transfer in Michigan would be clearly inappropriate, or the reason for the original transfer to disability inactive status no longer exists.”
2. Arizona Rule 63(c)(4) provides:
A. Incapacity to Discharge Duty. The presiding disciplinary judge may take or direct whatever action deemed necessary or proper to determine whether the lawyer or legal paraprofessional is incapacitated, including directing examination of the lawyer or legal paraprofessional by qualified experts designated by the presiding disciplinary judge at the expense of the state bar. The petitioner shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence, which shall include a relevant and recent medical, psychiatric or psychological evaluation, that, as a result of a mental or physical condition, the lawyer or legal paraprofessional lacks the capacity to adequately discharge the lawyer’s or legal paraprofessional’s duty to clients, the bar, the courts or the public.
B. Competency to Assist in Defense. The presiding disciplinary judge may take or direct whatever action deemed necessary or proper to determine whether the lawyer or legal paraprofessional is competent, including directing examination of the lawyer by qualified experts. Upon the filing of a disability petition, the state bar may also direct a lawyer to submit to an independent medical or mental evaluation by a qualified expert chosen by the state bar. The mere presence of a mental illness, defect, or disability or physical incapacity is not grounds for finding a lawyer incompetent. The only issue to be determined is whether the lawyer or legal paraprofessional is able to assist in the lawyer’s or legal paraprofessional’s own defense. To assist in the lawyer’s or legal paraprofessional’s own defense, the lawyer or legal paraprofessional needs to understand the charges, be able to communicate with the lawyer’s or legal paraprofessional’s attorney about the charges and any defense to those charges, and be able to testify about relevant conduct in the disciplinary proceeding. The expense for the evaluation shall be paid by the petitioner, unless otherwise ordered by the presiding disciplinary judge.
REINSTATEMENT WITH CONDITION
On December 4, 2025, Tri-County Hearing Panel #1 issued an order of eligibility for reinstatement with condition that ordered petitioner to be reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Michigan upon receipt of written proof that he has paid his applicable membership dues to the State Bar of Michigan in accordance with Rules 2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules concerning the State Bar.
On December 23, 2025, the Board received written verification from the State Bar of Michigan that petitioner has paid his applicable membership dues.
The Board being otherwise advised;
NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner, Omar Fahmi Shaaban, P80425, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective December 23, 2025.
It is further ordered that, upon petitioner’s reinstatement to the practice of law in Michigan and for two years after, petitioner shall be subject to the following condition:
1) If petitioner does not maintain malpractice coverage, he shall inform each of his clients of his lack of coverage and have them sign a declaration that they have been informed by him that he does not carry professional liability coverage. If petitioner does obtain coverage and then allows it to lapse or it is discontinued for some reason, he must notify all of his clients of that change in status.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
On September 11, 2025, Tri-County Hearing Panel #63 entered an Order of Suspension (By Consent) in this matter, suspending respondent’s license to practice of law in Michigan for 60 days, effective October 3, 2025. On November 26, 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, Carl D. Winekoff, P 76862, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective December 17, 2025.