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

Brittany A. Campbell, P75152, Lansing. Interim Suspension, Effective June 24, 2026.

Respondent failed to appear before Ingham County Hearing Panel #4 for a June 17, 2026, hearing and satisfactory proofs were entered into the record that she 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 June 24, 2026, and until further order of the panel or the Board.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Eric H. Clark, P31126, Livonia. Reprimand, Effective July 2, 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 Tri-County Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to all of the factual allegations, as well as the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in subparagraphs 27(e)-(h) of the formal complaint. Specifically, that respondent accepted $1,500 to deliver legal documents to an inmate at Lakeland Correctional Facility on two occasions in 2023. The documents, which respondent did not prepare or review, were intercepted by prison staff and law enforcement and tested positive for controlled substances. The stipulation further contained the parties’ agreement to dismiss the professional misconduct allegations set forth in subparagraphs 27(a)-(d).

Based upon respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent 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).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $912.42.

DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION

Brian T. Dailey, P39945, Grosse Pointe Farms. Disbarment, Effective June 20, 2024.

The Grievance Administrator filed a Twelve-Count Formal Complaint against Respondent. Based on the evidence presented to the hearing panel at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of various clients in numerous cases, and by failing to make payments of earned wages owed to his former bookkeeper and his assistant, failing to pay other attorneys for referral fees and their portion of earned attorney fees, and failing to pay court-ordered costs to other attorneys.

Specifically, the panel found that respondent: neglected a legal matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [Count Six]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 [Counts Six, Eight, Ten]; failed to promptly comply with a client’s reasonable request for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a), and failed to explain a matter to a client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b) [Counts Eight, Ten]; charged or collected, or attempted to charge or collect, clearly illegal or excessive fees, in violation of 1.5(a) and MCR 5.313(B) [Count Six]; failed to promptly pay or deliver funds that a third person is entitled to receive, and failed to promptly render a full accounting regarding such funds, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) [Counts One, Two, Three, Five through Eleven]; failed to hold disputed property separate from the lawyer’s property until the dispute is resolved, in violation of MRPC 1.15(c) and 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) [Count Two]; asserted a frivolous position in a proceeding, in violation of MRPC 3.1 [Count Five], knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) [Counts One, Four, Five, Six, Eight, Nine, Eleven]; violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) [Count Five]; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty and deceit, 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 through Nine, Eleven]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) [Counts Two, Four, Five, Eight, Nine, Eleven]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) [Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Six, Eight through Eleven]; 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, Four, Five, Six, Eight, Nine, Eleven]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [Counts One, Three through Eleven]; and, failed to answer a request for investigation or complaint in conformity with MCR 9.113 and 9.115(D), in violation of MCR 9.104(7) [Count Twelve]. The hearing panel also determined the Grievance Administrator failed to establish respondent violated the following rules: MRPC 1.3 and MRPC 1.5(a) [Count Seven]; MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Count Twelve]; MRPC 8.4(b) [Counts Ten, Twelve]; MRPC 8.4(c) [Counts Three, Seven, Twelve]; MCR 9.104(1) [Counts Three, Seven, Twelve]; MCR 9.104(2) [Counts Three, Seven, Ten, Twelve]; MCR 9.104(3) [Count Twelve]; and MCR 9.104(5) [Count Five].

The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for a period of five years and that he pay restitution in the total amount of $24,478.85, plus interest. Respondent timely filed a petition for review and motion for stay. The Attorney Discipline Board initially granted an interim stay on May 28, 2024, but later denied the motion on June 13, 2024, dissolving the stay and making the hearing panel’s suspension and restitution order effective June 20, 2024. Upon review, on March 24, 2025, the Board affirmed in part and vacated in part the hearing panel’s findings of misconduct, increased discipline from a five-year suspension to disbarment, and affirmed restitution. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Board on June 11, 2025.

On July 14, 2025, respondent filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court and a revised application for leave to appeal on July 24, 2025, which was denied on February 27, 2026. Respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court on May 22, 2026. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $14,198.15.

TRANSFER TO INACTIVE STATUS (BY CONSENT)

John J. Finn, P33678, Riverview. Inactive Status, Effective July 14, 2026.

On December 29, 2025, the Grievance Administrator filed a formal complaint against respondent alleging that he committed acts of professional misconduct warranting discipline. The formal complaint was assigned to Tri-County Hearing Panel #15 for proceedings to be held in accordance with MCR 9.115. Respondent subsequently failed to file an answer to the formal complaint, failed to appear for the scheduled virtual prehearing conference, and his default was entered on March 6, 2026.

On June 4, 2026, the Grievance Administrator filed a Petition to Transfer to Inactive Status alleging that respondent is incapacitated and is unable to continue the practice of law due to a mental or physical infirmity or disability, pursuant to MCR 9.121(B)(1) together with a motion to consolidate both cases and assign the petition to Tri-County Hearing Panel #15. Also on June 4, 2026, the parties filed a Stipulation to Transfer Respondent to Inactive Status Pursuant to MCR 9.121(B). The stipulation contains the parties agreement to set aside respondent’s default entered on March 6, 2026, and respondent’s admission that he is currently incapacitated to engage in the practice of law because of his physical disability as set forth in the petition to transfer respondent to inactive status.

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be transferred to inactive status until further order of the Attorney Discipline Board and that Formal Complaint 25-104-GA be held in abeyance in accordance with MCR 9.121(B)(4). No costs were assessed.

DISBARMENT

Levi T. Smith, P80484, Jackson. Disbarment, Effective July 2, 2026.¹

The Grievance Administrator filed a Notice of Filing of a Judgment of Conviction in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3), advising that on December 4, 2025, respondent was convicted of attempted home invasion, in violation of MCL 750.110a(2)(a), a felony; and possession of firearm while committing a felony, in violation of MCL 750.227b, a felony, in the matter titled People v Levi Trahern Smith, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 2024-290455-FH. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended, effective December 4, 2025, the date of respondent’s felony convictions.

Based on his convictions, Tri-County Hearing Panel #9 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 $2,039.08.

1. Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since December 4, 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 March 4, 2025, in Grievance Administrator v Levi T. Smith.

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

On May 4, 2026, Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #3 entered an Order of Suspension (By Consent) in this matter suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 45 days, effective May 26, 2026. On July 7, 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. 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, Victor L. Bland, P38278, is reinstated to the practice of law in Michigan, effective July 10, 2026.