INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)
Joseph Bernwanger, P71895, Redford. Interim Suspension, Effective August 11, 2026.1
Respondent failed to appear before Tri-County Hearing Panel #55 for an August 3, 2026, 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 August 11, 2026, and until further order of the panel or the Board.
1 Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since May 22, 2025. See Notice of Suspension and Restitution With Conditions (By Consent), issued on May 22, 2025, in Grievance Administrator v Joseph Bernwanger, Case No. 24-61-GA
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Frederick J. Boncher, P23072, Grand Rapids. Reprimand, Effective August 25, 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 Kent County Hearing Panel #4. Based on the parties’ stipulation and respondent’s admissions, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of Isaac and Courtney Leach in a civil lawsuit alleging civil trespassing by entering into an agreement that resulted in him charging a clearly excessive fee, filed pleadings without his clients consent, and failed to abide his the clients’ decision regarding a proposed settlement.
Specifically, the panel found that respondent: failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to abide by a client’s decision whether to accept an offer of settlement, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); entered into an agreement for, charged, and/or collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); where he had not regularly represented the client, failed to communicate the basis or rate of the fee to his client before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.5(b); 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.
TRANSFER TO INACTIVE STATUS PURSUANT TO MCR 9.121(B)
Joseph A. Campbell, II, P82540, Macomb Township. Transfer to Inactive Status, Effective July 31, 2026.
The Grievance Administrator filed Formal Complaint 25-28-PI; 25-29-GA, which included allegations that respondent is incapacitated and cannot continue the practice of law due to a mental or physical infirmity or disability or due to the addiction of drugs or intoxicants, pursuant to MCR 9.121(B). Respondent filed an answer objecting to the allegations of incapacity, and two evidentiary hearings were held.
Tri-County Hearing Panel #103 reported its findings and conclusions as to respondent’s competency and the circumstances that lead to the request for transfer by the Grievance Administrator. Based on the evidence presented, the panel unanimously determined that respondent is incapacitated from continuing to practice law as defined in MCR 9.121(B)(3). The panel issued an order transferring respondent to inactive status pursuant to MCR 9.121(B) for an indefinite period, effective July 31, 2026, and until further order of a panel or the Board in accordance with MCR 9.121(E). The panel further ordered that the allegations of professional misconduct contained in Formal Complaint 25-29-GA are to be held in abeyance pursuant to MCR 9.121(B)(4).
No costs were assessed in this matter.
SUSPENSION
Donald J. Cataldo, P55257, Howell. Suspension 30 Days, Effective September 1, 2026.
The Grievance Administrator filed a two-count formal complaint against respondent. Count One of the complaint alleges that respondent committed professional misconduct. Based on the evidence presented at a hearing held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #68 found that respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with his client’s estranged spouse, whom his client subsequently divorced, and agreed to act as a third-party neutral to draft a parenting time agreement for the parties’ minor child without disclosing the relationship to his client.
Specifically, the panel found that respondent: represented a client where the representation of that client was materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, where the lawyer did not reasonably believe the representation would not be adversely affected or where the client did not consent after consultation, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b) [Count One]; having formerly represented a client in a matter, thereafter represented a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client where the former client did not consent after consultation, in violation of MRPC 1.9(a) [Count One]; represented a client or, after representation had commenced, failed to withdraw from the representation of a client where: (1) the representation would result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (2) the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impaired the lawyer’s ability to represent the client; or (3) the lawyer was discharged, in violation of MRPC 1.16(a) [Count One]; served as a third-party neutral in a manner prohibited by MRPC 2.4, in violation of MRPC 2.4 [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) [Count One]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [Count One]; and, failed to timely answer the request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and 9.113(B)(2) [Count Two].
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days, effective August 4, 2026. Respondent subsequently filed a motion to modify the effective date of the suspension to September 1, 2026, which was granted by the panel. Costs were assessed in the amount of $5,403.56.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Evan A. Dixon, P45738, Houghton. Effective June 29, 2026.
On June 29, 2026, respondent was convicted by no contest plea of Second Degree Murder, a felony under MCL 750.317, in State of Michigan v Evan Dixon, Houghton County Circuit Court, Case No. 2024- 003464-FC. 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).
AMENDED NOTICE OF DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION1
Sean W. Drew, P33851, Niles. Disbarment, Effective August 6, 2026.2
The Grievance Administrator filed a five-count formal complaint against respondent alleging that he committed professional misconduct. Based on respondent’s default for failure to answer the formal complaint, in accordance with MCR 9.115(D)(2), Kent County Hearing Panel #1 found that respondent committed misconduct as alleged in the formal complaint in its entirety.
Specifically, 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) - (Counts One and Four); divided fees with a lawyer who was not in the same firm as him where the client was not advised of and nor given the opportunity to object to the participation of some of the lawyers involved, in violation of MRPC 1.5(e)(1) - (Count One); divided fees with a lawyer who was not in the same firm where the total fee was not reasonable, in violation of MRPC 1.5(e)(2) - (Count One); knowingly revealed a confidence or secret of a client when not permitted to do so under MRPC 1.6(c), in violation of MRPC 1.6(b)(1) - (Count One); failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property, failed to properly deposit client or third person funds in an IOLTA or non IOLTA account, and/or failed to properly identify and appropriately safeguard other property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) - (Count One); engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, or assisted another person to engage in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of MRPC 5.5(a) - (Counts One, Two and Three); 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) - (All Counts); 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, Two, Three, and Five); engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) - (All Counts); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2) - (All Counts); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) - (All Counts); engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4) - (All Counts); violated an order of discipline, in violation of MCR 9.104(9) - (All Counts); failed to comply with MCR 9.119(A) by failing to properly notify clients of his suspension, in violation of MCR 9.119(A) - (Counts One, Two, and Five); failed to provide proof to the Grievance Administrator of his compliance with MCR 9.119, in violation of MCR 9.119(C) - (Count Five); in a matter in which he was representing a client in litigation, failed to properly and timely file with the tribunal and all parties a notice of his disqualification from the practice of law, in violation of MCR 9.119(B) - (Counts One, Three, Four, and Five); failed to either file a motion to withdraw from the representation, or, with his client’s knowledge and consent, a substitution of counsel, in violation of MCR 9.119(B) - (Count One); after the effective date of an order of suspension, and during the period of said suspension, (1) practiced law, (2) had contact either in person, by telephone, or by electronic means, with clients or potential clients of a lawyer or law firm either as a paralegal, law clerk, legal assistant, or lawyer, (3) appeared as an attorney before any court, judge, justice, board, commission, or other public authority, or (4) held himself out as an attorney by any means, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1)-(4) - (Counts One, Two, and Three); held himself out as an attorney during the period of a suspension, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(4) - (Count Five); as a partner of a law firm, he failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the conduct of nonlawyers in the firm was compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 5.3(a) - (Counts Two and Three); having direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer, he failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 5.3(b) - (Counts Two and Three); is responsible for a nonlawyer’s conduct that would have been a violation of the rules of professional conduct if engaged in by a lawyer because he either (1) ordered or, with knowledge of the relevant facts and the specific conduct, ratified the conduct involved; or (2) was a partner in the law firm in which the nonlawyer was employed or had direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer, and knew of the conduct at a time when its consequences could have been avoided or mitigated but failed to take reasonable remedial action, in violation of MRPC 5.3(c)(1) and (2) - (Counts Two and Three); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal, or failed to correct a false statement of material fact or law he previously made to the tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1) - (Count Three); knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c)- (Count Three); failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) - (Counts Three and Five); failed to provide competent representation by undertaking preparation adequate in the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1(b) - (Count Four); failed to provide competent representation to his client by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) - (Count Four); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) - (Count Four); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 - (Count Four); and, knowingly made false statements of material facts in connection with a disciplinary matter, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(1) - (Count Five).
The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, effective August 6, 2026, and that he pay restitution totaling $5,000.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,202.99.
1 Amended to indicate that misconduct charged in the formal complaint was established as the result of respondent’s default for failure to answer the formal complaint.
2 Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since September 28, 2024. See Notice of Suspension and Restitution with Conditions issued on October 4, 2024, in Grievance Administrator v Sean W. Drew, Case No. 23-103-GA
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Ahmed D. Faraj, P84059, Detroit. Reprimand - Effective August 20, 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 #10. The stipulation contains respondent’s no contest pleas to all of the factual allegations in the formal complaint and the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in subparagraphs 27(c) and (d)-(g) of the formal complaint. The stipulation further contains the parties’ agreement that the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in subparagraphs 27(a), (b), and (h) of the formal complaint be dismissed. Based on respondent’s no contest pleas, it was found that respondent engaged in prohibited client solicitation and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice when he made direct contact with a prospective client after she had been in an automobile accident.
Specifically, the hearing panel found that respondent: engaged in improper solicitation by soliciting professional employment from a person with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain, in violation of MRPC 7.3(a); 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 9.102(2); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.103; and, 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).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $761.87.
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
Issa Fawaz, P83664, Dearborn. Reprimand, Effective July 8, 2025.
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended 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 #6. The parties dismissed paragraph 79(v) of the formal complaint, and respondent pled no contest to the factual allegations and rule violations set forth in the balance of the formal complaint. Specifically, the stipulation for consent order of discipline contained respondent’s no contest plea to allegations that he: made disparaging remarks about other attorneys before and during the representation of his clients, failed to adequately communicate with his clients, failed to properly account for client funds, charged a clearly excessive fee, and failed to appear at hearings leading to default judgments, and entered into unauthorized settlements. The stipulation for consent order of discipline further contained respondent’s no contest plea to the allegation that, after his representation was terminated, respondent delayed or failed to return client files, improperly held client funds without providing an accounting, and failed to timely withdraw as attorney of record from those cases.
Based upon respondent’s no contest pleas as set forth in the parties’ amended stipulation, the panel found that respondent failed to provide competent representation to his client, in violation of MRPC 1.1; neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); settled a case without the authorization of his client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and/or failed to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to promptly notify his client about settlement offers, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); entered into an agreement for, charged, and/or collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); failed to adequately communicate the basis or rate of the fee to his client, in violation of MRPC 1.5(b); entered into a contingent-fee agreement that was not in writing and/or which did not state the method by which the fee was to be determined, in violation of MRPC 1.5(c); failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent employees, associates, or others whose services are utilized by him from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.6(d); failed to (1) promptly notify a client or third person when funds or property in which a client or third person has an interest were received; (2) preserve complete records of such account funds and other property for a period of five years after termination of the representation; and (3) promptly pay or deliver any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive, except as stated in this 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); represented a client or, after representation had commenced, failed to withdraw from the representation of a client where, (1) the representation would result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law, (2) his physical or mental condition materially impaired his ability to represent the client, or (3) he was discharged, in violation of MRPC 1.16(a); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation, including by failing to surrender papers or property to which the client is entitled and failing to refund any advance payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); filed pleadings and motions, asserting or controverting issues without a basis for doing so that is nonfrivolous, in violation of MRPC 3.1; failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client, in violation of MRPC 3.2; as a partner of a law firm, he failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the conduct of nonlawyers in the firm was compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 5.3(a); having direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer, failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 5.3(b); failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process, in violation of MRPC 6.5(a); gave something of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, in violation of MRPC 7.2(c); 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); 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 amended stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded, required him to comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct, and to pay restitution. On July 7, 2025, the complainant filed a timely petition for review pursuant to MCR 9.118, and the Board affirmed the reprimand, effective July 8, 2025, with conditions and restitution in the amount of $12,465.00 on December 2, 2025. On December 22, 2025, the complainant filed a motion for reconsideration. On January 30, 2026, the Board denied complainant’s motion.
On February 18, 2026, the complainant filed an application for leave to the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied by the Court on July 30, 2026. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,502.31.
INTERIM SUSPENSION PURSUANT TO MCR 9.115(H)(1)
John O. Knappmann, P42983, Detroit. Interim Suspension - Effective August 19, 2026.
Respondent failed to appear before Tri- County Hearing Panel #9 for an August 6, 2026, 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 August 19, 2026, and until further order of the panel or the Board.
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)
Vanessa F. McCamant, P68254, Spring Lake. Suspension - 180 days, Effective October 1, 2025.1
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 respondent was convicted by guilty plea of Operating While Intoxicated/Impaired - 3rd Offense, a felony under MCL 257.625(11)(c)/PACC 257.6256D, in State of Michigan v Vanessa Fosse McCamant, Case No. 25- 00712-FH, Kent County 17th Circuit Court. The formal complaint alleged that respondent failed to report her conviction as required by MCR 9.120(A)(1).
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 Muskegon County Hearing Panel #1. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that she was convicted as set forth in the Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction, as well as her admissions to all factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint.
Based on respondent’s admissions 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 MRPC 8.4(b); failed to provide written notice within 14 days of a conviction to the Grievance Administrator and the Board, in violation of MCR 9.120(A) (1); knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); engaged in conduct 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, as proscribed by MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals, as proscribed by MCR 9.104(3); and, engaged in conduct that is in violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MCR 9.104(4) and MRPC 8.4(a).
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days, effective October 1, 2025, and that she be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $773.15.
1 Respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since June 9, 2025. See Notice of Interim Suspension issued February 24, 2026, in Grievance Administrator v Vanessa F. McCamant, Case No. 26-15-AI. As agreed by the parties, the hearing panel approved October 1, 2025, as the effective date of the order of suspension because that is the date respondent’s status with the State Bar of Michigan changed to inactive.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Nelson O. Ropke, P67575, Southfield. Effective July 2, 2026.
On July 2, 2026, respondent was convicted by guilty plea of aggravated child sexually abusive activity, a felony, in violation of MCL 750.145(C)(2)(b), and of computers - using to commit a crime, a felony, in violation of MCL 752.797(3)(f), in State of Michigan v Nelson Otto Ropke, Wayne County Circuit Court Case No. 26-2514-01-FH. Upon respondent’s conviction and in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended.
This matter has been 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).
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, Tri-County Hearing Panel #101 found, based on respondent’s plea of no contest to all twelve counts in the formal complaint, that respondent committed professional misconduct in eleven separate client matters and when he failed to cooperate with the Grievance 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.
On November 11, 2025, respondent filed an Application for Leave to Appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court pursuant to MCR 9.122. The Court denied respondent’s application on June 18, 2026.
Costs were assessed in the amount of $10,145.80.
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION
Jeffrey H. Urian, P64408, Royal Oak. Suspension - 180 Days, Effective August 5, 2025.
The Grievance Administrator filed notice of filing of judgment of conviction, 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 on December 11, 2024 of Operating While Intoxicated - Second Offense, a misdemeanor in violation of MCL 257.625(6)(B), in the matter of People of the State of Michigan v Jeffrey Howard Urian, 52-1 District Court, Case No. 24-002848-SD.
On March 11, 2026, a notice of order to show cause was entered advising respondent to show cause, pursuant to MCR 9.120(B)(3), why a final order of discipline should not issue, and scheduling the matter for hearing for May 14, 2026. Respondent did not file an answer to the order to show cause, and did not appear for the hearing.
After the proceedings concluded, Tri-County Hearing Panel #64 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).
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 180 days, effective August 5, 2026. The panel also imposed a condition requiring respondent to schedule an assessment with the Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program (LJAP), and, if required, enter into a monitoring agreement with LJAP, prior to respondent filing a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,896.24.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
On April 27, 2026, Grand Traverse County Hearing Panel #1 entered an Order of Suspension (By Consent) in this matter suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 30 days, effective July 1, 2026. On August 3, 2026, respondent filed an affidavit titled Affidavit of Full and Continuing Compliance. Respondent’s affidavit did not indicate whether it was filed pursuant to MCR 9.119 or MCR 9.123, thus he was asked to clarify his affidavit. On August 5, 2026, respondent advised the Board that his August 3, 2026, affidavit was filed pursuant to MCR 9.123(A). On August 10, 2026, the Grievance Administrator filed an objection to respondent’s reinstatement noting that respondent had not yet complied with the requirements of MCR 9.119(C). On August 13, 2026, respondent filed a second affidavit noting that it was filed pursuant to MCR 9.119 and MCR 9.123(A). Respondent’s affidavit states that he has fully complied with all requirements of the Order of Suspension (By Consent) and that he will continue to comply with the order until and unless he is reinstated. On August 21, 2026, the Grievance Administrator withdrew the objection to respondent’s reinstatement noting that the Administrator is now satisfied with respondent’s affidavit; and the Board being otherwise advised;
Now therefore, it is ordered that respondent, John E. Berry, P34268, is reinstated to the practice of law in Michigan, effective August 24, 2026.