DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

Robert A. Canner, P11572, Southfield. Disbarment, Effective December 12, 2025.¹

The Grievance Administrator filed a three count formal complaint against respondent alleging that he committed professional misconduct during his representation of three separate clients. Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege to the majority of the allegations. Prior to the hearing in this matter, respondent amended his answer to the formal complaint by pleading no contest to each allegation to which respondent had originally asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege. At the hearing, the Grievance Administrator moved to dismiss Count Three of the formal complaint.

Based on respondent’s admissions and pleas of no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the remaining two counts of Formal Complaint 24-70-GA, Tri-County Hearing Panel #71 found that respondent intentionally misappropriated one client’s funds by retaining them for himself, intentionally misappropriated another client’s settlement funds by failing to disburse the remainder of the funds, and, intentionally commingled non-client funds with client funds by depositing non-client funds into his IOLTA during the time that his client’s funds were required to be held in the IOLTA.

Specifically, the panel found that respondent engaged in professional misconduct by: failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (Count One); charging or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) (Counts One and Two); failing to put a contingent-fee agreement in writing, stating the method by which the fee is to be determined, in violation of MRPC 1.5(c) (Count One); failing to promptly pay or deliver any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive, except as stated in the rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, and, upon request by the client or third person, promptly render a full accounting regarding such property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) (Counts One and Two); failing 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) (Counts One and Two); upon termination of representation, failing to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (Count One); and, 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, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) (Counts One and Two). The panel found respondent’s conduct to have also violated MCR 9.104(2)-(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) (Counts One and Two).

The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred effective April 17, 2030, to run consecutively with the disbarment imposed in Grievance Administrator v Robert A. Canner, Case No. 23-83-GA, and further ordered restitution totaling $16,549.10. Prior to the effective date of the original decision, respondent moved to amend the order to change the effective date of the discipline from April 17, 2030, to December 12, 2025. Following a hearing on the motion, the panel granted the requested relief. All other provisions of the original order remained unchanged. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,485.44.

1 Respondent has been continuously ineligible to practice law in Michigan since his disbarment on April 16, 2025. See Notice of Disbarment and Restitution issued on October 21, 2025, in Grievance Administrator v Robert A. Canner, Case No. 23-83-GA.

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND MODIFYING IN PART HEARING PANEL ORDER OF DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

On January 8, 2026, Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #2 issued an Order of Disbarment and Restitution in this matter disbarring respondent and ordering her to pay restitution totaling $266,091.90, effective January 30, 2026. Respondent filed a timely petition for review on January 29, 2026, but did not request a stay of the order of discipline; accordingly, respondent’s disbarment took effect on January 30, 2026. Although respondent raised numerous issues in her original petition for review, in her brief in support, she narrowed the focus to only a review of the restitution ordered by the panel, abandoning all other issues.

The Attorney Discipline Board has conducted review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, including review of the evidentiary record before the panel and consideration of the briefs and arguments presented by the parties at a review hearing conducted via Zoom videoconferencing on April 8, 2026. For the reasons discussed below, we modify the restitution amount ordered by the hearing panel.

This disciplinary proceeding arose from a formal complaint filed February 26, 2024, alleging that respondent engaged in extensive misconduct while representing clients in civil and probate matters, most notably in connection with her representation of Earline White in a partition action. The record reflects that respondent received substantial funds from Ms. White and a third-party lender, Charles Meiser, including loan proceeds and client funds intended for litigation purposes, but misused those funds through repeated transfers between accounts, depletion of balances, and online gambling. Respondent also misappropriated funds from the Estate of Candice Massey to cover obligations in Ms. White’s matter.

Respondent was subsequently charged and convicted in January 2025 of embezzlement and issuing a non-sufficient funds check, resulting in a jail sentence, restitution order, and the automatic suspension of her license to practice law, in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1). Following respondent’s default in this disciplinary proceeding, the hearing panel found multiple violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and court rules, ordered that respondent be disbarred, effective January 30, 2026, and ordered respondent to pay restitution totaling $266,091.90; $68,500 to Ms. White, $100,000 to Mr. Meiser, and $97,591.90 to the Massey Estate, on or before January 30, 2026.

Again, the Board’s review in this matter is limited to the propriety of the restitution ordered by the hearing panel. Respondent has expressly abandoned all other issues; therefore, questions as to the hearing panel’s findings of misconduct and the appropriateness of the disbarment imposed by the panel are not before the Board. The sole question on review is whether the restitution ordered is supported by the whole record. See Grievance Administrator v August, 438 Mich 296, 304 (1991).

After careful review, we conclude that the hearing panel’s restitution award is not supported by proper evidentiary support and must be modified. With respect to Earline White, the record establishes that respondent received a total of $74,000 from Ms. White in connection with the underlying litigation.

However, it is equally undisputed that respondent caused $70,000 to be paid on Ms. White’s behalf to resolve that matter. While those funds were improperly taken from the Massey Estate, the fact remains that Ms. White received the full benefit of that payment. To the credit of counsel for the Grievance Administrator, at oral argument counsel acknowledged that the restitution amount may require modification in light of respondent’s $70,000 payment for Ms. White’s benefit, and later stipulated to that fact on the record. (Tr 04/08/26, pp 24–26.)

The hearing panel erred by failing to credit this $70,000 payment against the amount owed to Ms. White. The panel’s reliance on the restitution ordered to be paid in the criminal proceeding is misplaced, as that amount was the product of a plea agreement and not an adjudicated determination which we would be bound to follow here. By ordering respondent to pay $68,500 in restitution to Ms. White without accounting for the $70,000 payment made on her behalf, the panel effectively awarded Ms. White more than she actually lost. On this record, Ms. White’s net loss is $4,000, representing the difference between the total amount she provided to respondent and the amount ultimately paid for her benefit. Accordingly, restitution to Ms. White must be reduced to $4,000.

In contrast, the restitution awarded to Charles Meiser and the Estate of Candice Massey is supported by the record and is not meaningfully disputed. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Meiser transferred $100,000 to respondent, which has not been repaid, and that respondent misappropriated approximately $97,591.90 from the Massey Estate, likewise not repaid. Those amounts were properly included in the hearing panel’s order.¹

When the $70,000 payment is properly credited, the total amount of funds misappropriated by respondent is reduced to approximately $199,591.90. The panel’s restitution award of $266,091.90 therefore exceeds the actual loss by approximately $66,500, reflecting a clear mathematical and analytical error. Accordingly, we conclude that the hearing panel’s order of disbarment and restitution must be modified to reflect the actual losses sustained.

Now therefore, it is ordered that the hearing panel’s order of disbarment and restitution is affirmed in part and modified in part. Specifically, the $100,000 in restitution ordered to be paid to Charles Meiser and the $97,591.90 in restitution ordered to be paid to the Estate of Candice Massey are both affirmed. The $68,500 in restitution ordered to be paid to Earline White is reduced to $4,000.00.

It is further ordered that respondent shall not be eligible for reinstatement in accordance with MCR 9.123 unless she has fully complied with the restitution provisions of this order and with the restitution she agreed to pay as part of her plea agreement in People v Michelle Lynn Elowski, Oscoda County Circuit Court, Case Nos. 24- 1953-FH, 24-1954-FH, and 24-1955-FH.

It is further ordered that all other provisions of the hearing panel’s order of Disbarment and restitution remain in full force and effect.

1 Although respondent argues that her billing statements show she was entitled to a portion of the funds she received from Ms. White and the Massey Estate because of work she completed, fee forfeiture may be ordered in instances of misconduct, even where the lawyer has done some work. See Grievance Administrator v Thomas J McCallum, 90-18-GA; 90-42-FA (ADB 1990) (citing Rippey v Wilson, 280 Mich 233 (1937)).

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Kimberly J. Hamman, P49768, Brighton.

Reprimand, Effective April 24, 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 Livingston County Hearing Panel #1. Based on the parties’ stipulation, and respondent’s no contest pleas to the factual allegations and the allegations of professional misconduct, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct by engaging in the preparation of property and estate documents granting herself and her husband an interest in certain real estate owned by an unrepresented party, without taking reasonable efforts to advise the unrepresented party of her role in the transaction. The formal complaint further alleged that, during litigation that resulted from the real estate transaction, respondent requested that a judge withdraw a request for investigation that the judge had filed against respondent.

Specifically the panel found that respondent failed to adequately inform a self-represented person who reasonably should have been known to misunderstand her role in the matter, in violation of MRPC 4.3(a); 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 a violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); and, attempted to obtain an agreement that a party withdraw a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(10)(b).

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

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Donovan Rashaad Johnson, P82508, Detroit.

Reprimand, Effective April 28, 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 #13. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted by nolo contendere plea of Home Invasion 3rd Degree, a felony, in violation of MCR 750.110, in People v Donovan Rashaad Johnson, 6th Judicial District Court, Case No. 23283146- FH, and that the conviction constituted professional misconduct. However, in December 2024, the court postponed respondent’s sentencing until November 17, 2025; on that date, in light of respondent’s compliance with probation terms, the home invasion charge was dismissed, and respondent was sentenced for Disorderly Person, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 750.167.

Based upon respondent’s conviction, admissions, 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 $827.68.

REPRIMAND

Zhigang Ma, P72952, Northville. Reprimand, Effective April 16, 2026.

The Grievance Administrator filed a Notice of Filing of Reciprocal Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.120(C) that attached a certified copy of a Final Order Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.26 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, issued on January 29, 2026, reprimanding respondent and placing him on probation for six months, effective January 29, 2026, in In the Matter of Zhigang Ma, Proceeding No. D2026-12.

An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the Board on March 10, 2026, 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. On March 10, 2026, both parties notified the Attorney Discipline Board, in writing, that they were not requesting a hearing and did not object to the imposition of reciprocal discipline.

On March 18, 2026, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that respondent be reprimanded, effective April 16, 2026. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1.511.02.

DISBARMENT

Aaron Spolin, P85889, Los Angeles, California. Suspension, Disbarment, Effective April 23, 2026.

In a reciprocal discipline proceeding filed pursuant to MCR 9.120(C), the Grievance Administrator filed a certified copy of an order from the California Supreme Court issued September 11, 2025, disbarring respondent from the practice of law, effective September 11, 2025, in the matter titled In re Aaron Spolin, Case Nos. SBC- 24-O-30656; SBC-24-O-30844; S292012.

An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the Board and served on the parties on October 22, 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. On November 19, 2025, respondent filed a letter of objection with the Board, and a request to submit additional briefing on the issue. Upon respondent’s objection, this matter was assigned to Tri-County Hearing Panel #7 for disposition, pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(3).

The panel denied respondent’s request for additional briefing, finding that respondent was afforded due process in the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the California State Bar, and that it would not be clearly inappropriate to impose comparable discipline in Michigan. On April 1, 2026, the panel issued an order disbarring respondent from the practice of law in Michigan, effective April 23, 2026. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,510.73.

DISBARMENT

Christopher J. Woolf, P79877, Dewitt. Disbarment, Effective August 7, 2025.¹

The Grievance Administrator filed a Notice of Filing of a Judgment of Conviction in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3), advising that on August 7, 2025, respondent was convicted by guilty verdict of: Count One - Child Sexually Abusive Activity, a felony, in violation of MCL 750.145C(2); Count Two - Using a Computer to Commit the Crime of Child Sexually Abusive Activity, a felony, in violation of MCL 752.7973(D); Count Three - Accosting a Child for Immoral Purposes, a felony, in violation of MCL 750.145A-A; and Count Four - Using a Computer to Commit the Crime of Accosting a Child for Immoral Purposes, a felony, in violation of MCL 752.7973(F), in a matter titled State of Michigan v Christopher James Woolf, 30th Circuit – Ingham County Circuit Court, Case No. 24-000182-FH-C30. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended, effective August 7, 2025, the date of respondent’s felony convictions.

Based on his convictions, Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #2 found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he engaged in conduct that violated criminal laws of the 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 honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b).

The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,057.08.

1 Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since August 7, 2025, the date of respondent’s felony conviction and automatic suspension pursuant to MCR 9.120(B)(1). See Notice of Automatic Interim Suspension issued September 12, 2025, in Grievance Administrator v Christopher J. Woolf, Case No. 25-81-AI.

NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

Notice is given that Mark Hermiz, P76378, has filed a petition for reinstatement in the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan and with the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking reinstatement as a member of the Bar of this state and restoration of his license to practice law.

In Grievance Administrator v Mark Hermiz, 17-85-GA (ADB 2017), a panel found, by stipulation of the parties, that Petitioner committed acts of professional misconduct in his representation of Relief Physical Therapy and Rehab to obtain payment of insurance claims for medical services provided by the company to accident injury victims. Petitioner failed to enter into a signed, written contingent fee agreement with Relief Physical Therapy and Rehab; did not maintain adequate communications with the client concerning the settlement amounts; failed to adequately advise the client of the receipt of settlement checks; failed to provide a written disbursement sheet setting forth the disbursement of funds following settlement; and failed to maintain adequate bookkeeping records concerning his IOLTA account and the amounts he was due from each individual settlement.

Based upon Petitioner’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that Petitioner failed to obtain specific settlement authority from his client in each matter, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to explain each settlement to his client through its authorized representative, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to enter into a written contingent fee agreement, in violation of MRPC 1.S(c); failed to issue a disbursement sheet for each settlement, in violation of MRPC 1.S(c); failed to notify his client promptly when settlement checks were received, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b) (1 ); failed to hold client funds separate from his own funds, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); engaged in conduct that was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in viola- tion of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that 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 was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3). Based on the parties’ stipulation, the panel ordered Petitioner be suspended for 179 days, effective October 11, 2017, and ordered him to comply with the conditions contained in the parties’ stipulation.

In Grievance Administrator v Mark Hermiz, 20-46-GA (ADB 2020), Petitioner entered into a stipulation containing his admissions to the allegations that he committed acts of professional misconduct in relation to his representation of a client and the client’s company after being retained to negotiate or file civil actions to collect unpaid medical bills owed to the client and the client’s company.

Based upon Petitioner’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that Petitioner failed to obtain specific settlement authority from his client in each matter, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain each settlement to his client through its authorized representative, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); failed to enter into a written contingent fee agreement, in violation of MRPC 1.5(c); failed to issue a disbursement sheet for each settlement, in violation of MRPC 1.5(c); failed to notify his client promptly when settlement checks were received, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1); and, failed to hold client funds separate from his own funds, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d). Petitioner was also found to have violated MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(2), (3), and (4). Based on the finding of misconduct and the stipulation of the parties, the panel suspended for 18 months, effective April 8, 2020, and ordered compliance with the conditions contained in the parties’ stipulation.

The Petitioner is required to establish by clear and convincing evidence the following:

1. He desires in good faith to be restored to the privilege to practice law in this state;
2. The term of the suspension or revocation of his license, whichever is applicable, has elapsed;
3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his suspension or revocation;
4. He has complied fully with the terms of the order of discipline;
5. His conduct since the order of discipline has been exemplary and above reproach;
6. He has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the Bar and will conduct himself in conformity with those standards;
7. He can safely be recommended to the public, the courts, and the legal profession as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and, in general, to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the court;
8. That if he has been out of the practice of law for three years or more, he has been recertified by the Board of Law Examiners; and,
9. He has reimbursed or has agreed to reimburse the Client Protection Fund any money paid from the fund as a result of his conduct. Failure to fully reimburse as agreed is grounds for revocation of a reinstatement.

A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, July 21, 2026, commencing at 9:30 a.m., at the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, 333 W. Fort St., Ste. 1700, Detroit, MI 48226.

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, the petitioner will be required to establish his eligibility for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence.

Any interested person may appear at such hearing and be heard in support of or in opposition to said petition for reinstatement. Any person having information bearing on the Petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:

Michael K. Mazur, Senior Associate Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
755 W. Big Beaver, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48084
(313) 961-6585
mkmazur@agcmi.com