SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
Gregory A. Bell, P61658, Ypsilanti. Suspension, three years, effective Oct. 2, 2024.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Second Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Three-Year Suspension in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Wash-tenaw County Hearing Panel #3. The second amended stipulation contained the respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint, namely that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his handling of a client’s probate court case and for mishandling funds provided to his office by his client with the intent that the respondent would safeguard the funds until he completed future legal work.
Based upon the respondent’s admissions and the parties’ second amended stipulation, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [counts 1 and 2]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of MRPC 1.3 [count 1]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [count 1]; failed to safeguard client funds deposited in his IOLTA in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) [count 2]; failed to refund unearned fees in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [count 1]; failed to supervise a nonlawyer assistant and give reasonable assurances that the nonlawyer assistant’s conduct is compatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations in violation of MRPC 5.3 [count 2]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) [counts 1-2]; 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 1-2]; and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-2].
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for three years, effective Oct. 2, 2024, and that the respondent pay restitution totaling $20,000. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,064.52.
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS
Sean W. Drew, P33851, Niles. Suspension, 90 days, effective Sept. 28, 2024.
Hearings were held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115 and the respondent stipulated to the facts and allegations of misconduct set forth in the formal complaint. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearings and the respondent’s stipulation, Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #2 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in a civil matter, during his representation of a client in a divorce matter, and during his representation of a client seeking visitation with her minor child. The panel also found that the respondent failed to answer the grievance administrator’s requests for investigation concerning these clients.
Specifically, the hearing panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [counts 1 and 3]; failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) [counts 1 and 3]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of MRPC 1.3 [counts 1 and 3]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and/or comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [counts 2-3]; entered into an agreement for, charged, and/or collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee in violation of MRPC 1.5(a) [counts 2-3]; failed to adequately communicate the basis or rate of the fee to his client in violation of MRPC 1.5(b) [count 2]; failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation, such as failing to refund any advanced fees that had not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [count 3]; entered, or attempted to enter, into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client where (1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquired the interest were not fair and reasonable to the client and were not fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner that could be reasonably understood by the client, (2) the client was not given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction, and/or (3) the client did not consent in writing thereto in violation of MRPC 1.8(a) [count 2]; filed pleadings and motions asserting or controverting issues without a basis for doing so that is non-frivolous in violation of MRPC 3.1 [count 1]; failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client in violation of MRPC 3.2 [count 1]; 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 1]; knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) [count 1]; failed to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party in violation of MRPC 3.4(d) [count 1]; failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [count 4]; and failed to answer a Request for Investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(B)(2) [count 4]. The panel also found violations of MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(c) in all four counts.
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 90 days; pay restitution in the total amount of $1,800; and be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,495.15.
179-DAY SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Gerard J. Garno, P62106, Washington. Suspension, 179 days, effective Sept. 24, 2024.
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of 179-Day Suspension with Conditions which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #10. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted of criminal contempt on Sept. 14, 2022 (failure to appear); Oct. 28, 2022 (failure to appear and failure to pay child and/or spousal support); and Dec. 6, 2022 (failure to pay child and/or spousal support and inappropriate behavior in court toward another court participant) arising out of his conduct during and after his divorce proceedings (see In the Matter of Gerard Garno (Laura Grigg Garno v. Gerard J. Garno), 31st Circuit Court, Case No. 19-000719-DZ) and that he commingled his personal and/or business funds with client funds and improperly paid business and/or personal expenses out of his IOLTA. The stipulation further contained the respondent’s admissions to the remaining factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct as set forth in the formal complaint and the parties’ agreement that paragraphs 209(d), (f), (h), and (o) of the formal complaint would be dismissed.
Based on the respondent’s admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found the respondent represented a client where the representation was materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or 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 1]; failed to safeguard client property in violation of MRPC 1.15 [count 2]; failed 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) [count 2]; brought or defended a proceeding or asserted or controverted an issue therein without a basis for doing so that is non-frivolous in violation of MRPC 3.1 [count 1]; failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client in violation of MRPC 3.2 [count 1]; failed to disclose to a tribunal controlling legal authority in the jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(2) [count 1]; unlawfully obstructed another party’s access to evidence, unlawfully altered, destroyed, or concealed a document or other material having potential evidentiary value, or counseled or assisted another person to do any such act in violation of MRPC 3.4(a) [count 1]; 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 1]; in pretrial procedure, made a frivolous discovery request and/or failed to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party in violation of MRPC 3.4(d) [count 1]; during trial, alluded to matters that he did not reasonably believe were relevant or that were not supported by admissible evidence, asserted personal knowledge of facts in issue when not testifying as a witness, and/or stated a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant, or the guilt or innocence of an accused in violation of MRPC 3.4(e) [count 1]; requested that a person other than a client refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party where the person was not an employee or other agent of a client for purposes of MRE 801(d)(2)(D) or the lawyer did not reasonably believe that the person’s interests would not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information in violation of MRPC 3.4(f) [count 1]; engaged in undignified or discourteous conduct toward a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.5(d) [count 1]; failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process in violation of MRPC 6.5(a) [count 1]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) [counts 1-2]; engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2) [counts 1-2]; engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-2]; 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) [count 1]; and failed to report a criminal conviction to the grievance administrator and the Attorney Discipline Board in writing within 14 days after the conviction in violation of MCR 9.120(A)(1) [count 1].
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 179 days, effective Sept. 24, 2024, as agreed to by the parties. The panel also ordered that the respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,130.80.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Kenneth B. Morgan, P34492, Farmington Hills. Suspension, five years, effective Sept. 17, 2024.1
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #73 found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in a civil matter and failed to answer a request for investigation. The respondent failed to file a timely answer to the complaint and his default was entered by the grievance administrator on Feb. 23, 2024. That same day, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint but did not request to set aside the default.
Based on the respondent’s default and admissions, the panel found that the respondent failed to represent a client competently in violation of MRPC 1.1(a) [count 1]; neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [count 2]; failed to seek the lawful objective of a client through reasonably available means in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) [count 1]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 [count 1]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [count 1]; upon termination, failed to return a file in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [count 1]; failed to provide candid advice in violation of MRPC 2.1 [count 1]; filed a frivolous pleading in violation of MRPC 3.1 [count 1]; knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [count 2]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) [counts 1-2]; 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 1-2]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [counts 1-2]; engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct in violation of MCR 9.104(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) [counts 1-2]; and failed to answer the request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2) in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [count 2].
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for five years and that he pay restitution in the total amount of $20,000. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,119.38.
1. The respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since March 19, 2024. See Notice of Suspension issued on March 22, 2024, in Grievance Administrator v. Kenneth B. Morgan, 23-88-RD; 23-89-GA.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Matthew D. Novello, P63269, Highland. Suspension, 60 days, effective Oct. 10, 2024.1
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #72. The stipulation contained the parties’ agreement that paragraphs 57; 59(e), (f), (g), and (j); and 67(c) and (f) of the formal complaint would be dismissed and that paragraphs 53 and 58 would be amended. The stipulation also contained the respondent’s plea of no contest to the factual allegations and grounds for discipline set forth in the remaining paragraphs of the formal complaint.
Based on the respondent’s no contest pleas and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [count 1]; failed to seek the lawful objectives of the client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) [count 1]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3 [count 1]; failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, comply with reasonable requests for information and notify the client promptly of all settlement offers in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [count 1]; knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [count 2]; failed to answer a Request for Investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2) [count 2]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) [counts 1-2]; and 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 1-2].
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 60 days, effective Oct. 10, 2024. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,195.51.
1. The respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since Dec. 8, 2022. See Notice of 180-Day Suspension and Restitution, issued March 15, 2023, in Grievance Administrator v. Matthew D. Novello, 22-76-GA.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Jeffrey W. Perlman, P36664, Southfield. Reprimand, effective Sept. 18, 2024.
The 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 #69. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint, namely that the respondent committed professional misconduct by failing to remove the name and image of a suspended attorney from the firm’s website and advertising.
Based upon the respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent offered firm communications containing a material misrepresentation of fact in violation of MRPC 7.1(a) and failed to identify the name and contact information of at least one lawyer responsible for the content of an advertisement in violation of MRPC 7.2(d). The panel also found the respondent’s conduct to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $790.82.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Brent D. Riley, P78208, Eagle. Reprimand, effective Oct. 11, 2024.
The 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 Ingham County Hearing Panel #2.
The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted by guilty plea of operating while impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625 in a matter titled State of Michigan v. Brent David Riley, 65A District Court, Case No. 24-372-SD, and that this conviction constitutes professional misconduct.
Based on the respondent’s conviction, admission, and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the 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).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $761.26.
DISBARMENT (BY CONSENT)
Jack B. Wolfe, P39667, West Bloomfield. Disbarment, effective Oct. 2, 2024.1
The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #64. The stipulation contained the respondent’s acknowledgment that he was convicted by guilty plea on Feb. 15, 2024, of two counts of forgery of [sic] document affecting real property and two counts of uttering and publishing a document affecting real property in violation of MCL 750.248b and MCL 750.249b, felony offenses, and that his conviction constituted professional misconduct.
Based on the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that the 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 the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $873.32.
1. The respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since Feb. 12, 2013. See Notice of Suspension issued Aug. 20, 2013, in Grievance Administrator v Jack B. Wolfe, 12-39-RD.
SUSPENSION
Michael J. Zayed, P53518, White Lake. Suspension, 180 days, effective Sept. 19, 2024.
The grievance administrator filed a combined Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction and Formal Complaint. The notice, filed in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3), stated that the respondent was convicted by guilty plea of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .17 grams or more per 100 millimeters of blood, a misdemeanor. The formal complaint alleged that the respondent failed to notify the grievance administrator and the Attorney Discipline Board of his conviction and failed to respond to a request for investigation.
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115 and 9.120, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction and that by virtue of his default for failure to answer the formal complaint or appear at the hearing, the respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged in the formal complaint in its entirety.
Based on the respondent’s conviction, the panel found that the 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 MRPC 8.4(b) and MCR 9.104(5).
Based on the respondent’s default and the evidence presented at the hearing, the panel found that the respondent engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and 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); engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MCR 9.104(4); failed to notify the grievance administrator and the board of the conviction within 14 days after the conviction in violation of MCR 9.120(A)(1); and failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A)(B)(2) in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MRPC 8.1(a)(2).
The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 180 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,782.15.