Reinstatement Denied

The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board affirmed a hearing panel decision denying reinstatement to a disbarred attorney

Petitioner was permanently disbarred from the practice of law in New Mexico on January 18, 2017, for actions arising out of his representation of three clients, which included counseling a client to bribe witnesses, revealing client confidences, making material misrepresentations to tribunals and the disciplinary authority, filing frivolous pleadings, and conversion of client funds. On May 2, 2017, the Grievance Administrator filed a Notice of Filing of Reciprocal Discipline, and on July 20, 2017, an Order of Disbarment was entered, effective August 18, 2017, based on the New Mexico discipline.

Standard of review

the Board finds that there is proper evidentiary support for the hearing panel’s conclusions in this matter, and that petitioner did not carry his burden of proof as to the criteria found in MCR 9.123(B)(1), (5) and (7) by clear and convincing evidence.

To the extent that the panel’s conclusions were based upon its assessment of petitioner’s testimony, the Board will generally defer to those assessments in light of the panel’s firsthand opportunity to judge credibility. Grievance Administrator v Neil C. Szabo, 96-228-GA (ADB 1998); Grievance Administrator v Deborah C. Lynch, 96-96-GA (ADB 1997). See also McWhorter, supra at 136 n 7. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that we should not exercise such deference here.

Our coverage of the New Mexico action is linked here. (Mike Frisch)