DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION
John F. Calvin, P74477, West Bloomfield. Disbarment, Effective January 7, 20261
The Grievance Administrator filed a six-count formal complaint against respondent. Based on respondent’s default, the panel found that respondent neglected five client matters, failed to communicate with his clients regarding the matters for which respondent had been retained, failed to take reasonable efforts to protect the clients’ interests upon conclusion of the representation, including failing to refund unearned fees, and failed to file an answer to several requests for investigation.
Specifically, the panel found that respondent engaged in professional misconduct by: neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [Counts One through Four]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 [Counts One through Four); failed to keep the clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [Counts One through Five); charged or collected a clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) [Count Two]; upon termination of representation, failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests, such as surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled or refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [Counts One through Five]; failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client, in violation of MRPC 3.2 [Count One]; 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 and Two]; failed to respond to a lawful request for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Count Six]; failed to file an answer to a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2) [Count Six]; and, attempted to obtain an agreement that the professional misconduct shall not be reported to the administrator, in violation of MCR 9.104(10)(a) [Count Two]. The panel found respondent’s conduct to also have violated MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) in Count Six, and MCR 9.104(2)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) in Counts One through Six.
The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, effective January 7, 2026, that he pay restitution totaling $8,321.00, and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,825.96.
1. Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since January 29, 2025. See Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), issued on January 29, 2025, in Grievance Administrator v John F. Calvin, 24-64-GA.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Erica C. Cicchelli, P58553, Southfield. Reprimand, Effective January 10, 2026
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 Tri-County Hearing Panel #51. Based on the parties’ stipulation and respondent’s admissions, the panel found that respondent negligently selected her IOLTA, instead of a separate family bank account, to make an ACH payment for a credit card purchase. The ACH payment was not honored.
Specifically, the panel found that respondent failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d). 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 $763.54.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Roger G. Cotner, P36569, Grand Haven. Reprimand, Effective January 27, 2026
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 Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #2. The stipulation contained the parties’ agreement that paragraphs 20-22 and subparagraphs 38(c) and 38(e) of the formal complaint be dismissed, and respondent’s admissions to the remaining factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint. Based on the parties’ stipulation and respondent’s admissions, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he filed a lawsuit against a deceased client’s stepdaughter and subsequently recorded a lien on the deceased client’s home seeking $6,545.58 for alleged services despite having a retainer agreement with his client, prior to his death, that capped fees of $1,000.00.
Based upon respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent entered into an agreement for, charged, or collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); brought a proceeding, or asserted or controverted an issue therein, without a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, in violation of MRPC 3.1; 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. Costs were assessed in the amount of 762.14.
DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION (PENDING REVIEW)
Michelle L. Elowski, P74608, Alpena. Disbarment, Effective January 30, 20261
The Grievance Administrator filed a formal complaint against respondent. Based on respondent’s default, witness testimony corroborated the findings, the documentary evidence supporting the allegations in the formal complaint, and respondent’s no contest plea to the criminal charges in People of the State of Michigan v Michelle Lynn Elowski, Oscoda County, 23rd Circuit Court, Case Nos. 24-1953-FH and 24-1954-FH), the panel found that respondent misappropriated funds from several clients in matters for which respondent had been retained, and in doing so, engaged in illegal conduct that resulted in her criminal conviction.
The panel specifically found that based on respondent’s default and the evidence presented by the Grievance Administrator established that respondent: failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep her clients informed as to the status of their cases, in violation 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 pay or deliver funds or other property that a client or third person was entitled to receive, in violation of MRPC 1.5(b)(3); failed to hold the property of the client or third person in connection with representation separate from the lawyer’s own property by depositing funds into her personal account, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); knowingly made a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter, in violation of MRPC 8.1.(a); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and that the conduct reflected adversely on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice as an attorney, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); engaged in conduct violating the standards or rules of professional conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that violated the criminal laws of the State of Michigan and the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5); and, knowingly made a misrepresentation of any facts or circumstances surrounding a request for investigation or complaint, in violation of MCR 9.104(6).
The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, effective January 30, 2026, that she pay restitution totaling $266,091.90. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,933.69.
On January 29, 2026, respondent timely filed a petition for review pursuant to MCR 9.118. Respondent’s petition for review is currently pending before the Board.
1. Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since January 16, 2025. See Notice of Automatic Interim Suspension, issued on February 27, 2025, in Grievance Administrator v Michelle L. Elowski, 25-15-AI.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Derek E. Miller, P73278, Sterling Heights. Reprimand, Effective January 21, 2026
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 Tri-County Hearing Panel #101. Based on the parties’ stipulation and respondent’s admissions, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct during his tenure as the Chief of Operations for the Macomb County Prosecutor’s Office under Prosecutor Eric Smith. Respondent pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of MCL 750.485 for refusing or neglecting to account for county funds, with sentencing delayed. Respondent’s criminal conviction was dismissed on September 25, 2024, after he complied with all court-ordered conditions, including probation, fines, community service, and no-contact requirements.
Specifically, the panel found that respondent 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 a criminal law of a state, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,035.92.
NOTICE OF DISBARMENT
Jesse J. Monville, P66760, White Pine. Disbarment, Effective January 8, 20261
The Grievance Administrator filed a combined Notice of Filing of a Judgment of Conviction and Formal Complaint against respondent. The Notice of Judgment of Conviction, filed in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3), advised that on or about October 8, 2020, respondent was convicted by guilty plea, in United States of America v Jesse James Monville, United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Case No. 2:20-cr-6-01, of Possession With Intent to Deliver 50 Grams or More of Methamphetamine, a felony, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii). The formal complaint alleged that respondent failed to provide written notice of his conviction to the Attorney Discipline Board and the Attorney Grievance Commission within 14 days of the acceptance of his plea, in violation of MCR 9.120(A).
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115 and MCR 9.120, Upper Peninsula Hearing Panel #1 found that respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Filing of a Judgment of Conviction, and that by virtue of his default for failure to answer the formal complaint, respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged in the formal complaint, in its entirety.
Specifically, the panel found, based on respondent’s conviction, 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 MRPC 8.4(b). Based on respondent’s default and the record, the hearing panel found that respondent failed to provide written notice of his conviction to the Attorney Discipline Board and the Attorney Grievance Commission within 14 days of the acceptance of his plea, in violation of MCR 9.120(A)(1); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administrator of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); exposed 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).
The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, effective January 8, 2026. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,997.80.
1. Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since May 14, 2018. See Notice of Interim Suspension issued June 4, 2018, in Grievance Administrator v Jesse J. Monville, Case Nos. 17-140-JC; 17-141-GA.
2. Respondent admitted this in Paragraph 9a of his untimely Answer to Complaint.
3. While Respondent raised several issues that could be considered in mitigation, he did not identify them pursuant to the ABA Standards. As such, the panel considered the issues raised by Respondent and independently correlated them to the ABA Standards.
4. In response to Respondent’s purported personal and emotional problems, counsel for the Grievance Administrator noted Respondent’s extensive disciplinary history, and that that Respondent referenced the same trauma as a mitigating circumstance in ADB Case No. 17-140-JC and Case No. 17-141-GA. (Tr, 35:1-6)
5. The Panel notes that this suspension ran consecutive to Respondent’s two-year suspension with restitution which was effective 5/14/18 so that respondent was continuously suspended for three years. It was the intent of that panel that Respondent be required to be reinstated by a hearing panel and recertified by the Board of Law Examiners.
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Erik C. Rakoczy, P86620, Southfield. Suspension — 30 Days, Effective January 8, 2026
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted by a no contest plea on March 4, 2024 in People of the City of Ann Arbor v Erik Christopher Rakoczy, 15th Judicial District Court of Ann Arbor, MI, Case No. 23-0633-OD, of Operating While Visibly Impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625(3). The amended stipulation also contained the parties’ agreement that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days and that he be required to comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct.
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 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 stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 30 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct, effective January 8, 2026. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,050.28
1. Amended to include the panel’s approval of the parties’ Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline filed October 30, 2025; to include (By Consent) as part of the title; and to remove incorrect references to MCR 9.123(B) and MCR 9.124.
SUSPENSION
Deborah K. Schlussel, P56420, Southfield. Suspension — 30 Days, Effective January 10, 2026
Based on the evidence presented at a hearing held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #55 found that respondent committed professional misconduct in connection with her representation of two clients in their separate compassionate release matters.
Specifically, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (Counts One and Two); acted without reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 (Counts One and Two); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (Counts One and Two); and, failed to take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests upon termination, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (Count One). The panel also found respondent’s conduct to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(b) (Counts One and Two).
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days. On October 16, 2024, respondent timely petitioned the Board for review of the panel’s final order, and requested and received a stay pursuant to MCR 9.115(K). After proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, the Board issued an Order Affirming, In Part, and Vacating, In Part, Findings of Misconduct, and Affirming Order of 30-Day Suspension.
Respondent’s discipline was stayed upon the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration pursuant to MCR 9.118(E) on June 20, 2025. Respondent’s motion was denied by the Board on August 8, 2025.
Respondent timely filed an application for leave to appeal pursuant to MCR 9.122(A), which was denied by the Supreme Court on December 19, 2025. The 30-day suspension of respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was stayed for the pendency of the appeal and, pursuant to MCR 9.122(C), became effective on January 10, 2026. Costs were assessed in the total amount of $3,143.76.
1. We note that Dr. Young’s testimony was not, and was not purported to be, probative of any “defense” to the charges at issue. Instead, Dr. Young’s testimony related to respondent’s state of mind and mental heath, and was thus more suitable to testimony in mitigation at a sanction hearing
2. We have also considered two cases raised by the parties as applicable precedent in this matter. In both Grievance Administrator v Joseph Ernst,14-116-GA (ADB 2015), and Grievance Administrator v Donald Teichman, 92-31- GA (ADB 1993), the Board affirmed hearing panel orders of reprimand in cases where the respondents provided false information to clients regarding the status of their cases. However, this matter is distinguishable from both Ernst and Teichman because those cases involved singular instances, whereas respondent’s conduct in this case was a pattern involving two separate clients.
SUSPENSION
Rebecca S. Tieppo, P62311, Livonia. Suspension — 180 Days, Effective January 21, 20261
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #10 found that respondent committed professional misconduct during her representation of a client in a criminal matter by failing to adequately prepare for the representation, failing to communicate with her client, and making false statements of material fact to her client. Respondent’s failure to adequately prepare for the representation led to a judicial finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Based on respondent’s default, the hearing panel found that respondent handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1(b); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, 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; knowingly made or failed to correct a false statement of material fact to a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1); 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); and, made knowing misrepresentations of facts or circumstances surrounding a request for investigation or complaint, in violation of MCR 9.104(6). The panel found respondent’s conduct to also have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(c).
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,761.86.
1. Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since May 29, 2025. See Notice of Suspension With Conditions, issued on May 29, 2025, in Grievance Administrator v Rebecca S. Tieppo, Case No. 22-82-GA.
2. MCR 9.123(B) provides that an attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked or suspended for more than 179 days is not eligible for reinstatement until the attorney has petitioned for reinstatement under MCR 9.124 and has established MCR 9.123(B)(1)-(9) by clear and convincing evidence at a hearing before a panel.
REINSTATEMENT
On October 3, 2025, Tri-County Hearing Panel #17 entered an Order of Suspension and Restitution with Condition (By Consent) in this matter suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 30 days, effective December 1, 2025. On January 5, 2026, 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, Zachary Hallman, P78327, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective January 13, 2026.
REINSTATEMENT
David Hossein Safavian, P48165, Alexandria, Virginia. Reinstated, Effective January 30, 2026
Petitioner was disbarred effective January 4, 2012, in Grievance Administrator v David Hossein Safavian, Case Nos. 08-186- AI; 11-133-JC. On November 4, 2024, petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to MCR 9.123(B), which was assigned to Tri-County Hearing Panel #8. After a hearing on the petition, the panel entered an order of eligibility for reinstatement on April 3, 2025.
On January 26, 2026, the Board received written verification from the State Board of Law Examiners that petitioner is entitled to recertification and that petitioner paid his bar dues in accordance with Rules 2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules concerning the State Bar of Michigan.
The Board issued an Order of Reinstatement reinstating petitioner to the practice of law in Michigan, effective January 30, 2026.