A Move To Michigan
An attorney admitted in Illinois moved to Michigan and took a position with a law firm.
In or about March 2020, Respondent moved to Michigan. In or about July 2020, Respondent applied for an associate attorney position with LeFevre & LeFevre, PLLC (“LeFevre”), a personal injury and general litigation law firm in Saginaw, Michigan. In July 2020, LeFevre hired Respondent with the explicit agreement that he would seek admission to practice law in Michigan. Until he gained admission to the Michigan Bar, LeFevre and Respondent agreed that Respondent would act as a law clerk and that Respondent would notsign any pleadings, appear in court, sign or offer engagement agreements on behalf of the firm, or offer any legal advice to the firm’s clients.
The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint against him
From the beginning of his employment with LeFevre in July 2020, and throughout the course of his employment with the firm until July 2021, Respondent repeatedly told the firm’s managing partners that he applied for admission to practice law in Michigan. At various times throughout his employment, when asked about the status of his application, Respondent indicated that his application was somehow being delayed. Respondent did not apply for admission to practice law in Michigan until late July 2021.
Respondent’s statements to the managing partners at LeFevre beginning in July 2020 and continuing through July 2021, that he had applied for admission to practice law in Michigan were false in that he had not applied for admission to practice law in Michigan. Respondent knew those statements were false at the time he made them.
The employment was terminated
In early July 2021, when Respondent had still not been admitted to practice law in Michigan, the LeFevre firm terminated his employment. Following Respondent’s termination from the LeFevre firm, attorneys from the firm reviewed Respondent’s work and correspondence, and discovered that he had been holding himself out as authorized to practice law to a number of the firm’s clients, as well as making false statements to those clients about the status of their cases.
Respondent ultimately applied for admission to practice law in Michigan in late July 2021. Respondent’s application to practice law in Michigan was rejected by the Michigan Supreme Court Board of Law Examiners (“Board”) on July 29, 2021.
After he was removed from practice in Illinois for failure to register, it is alleged
On or about November 25, 2020, A.H. contacted the LeFevere firm to represent him in a property repossession matter. In his initial contact with the firm, A.H. spoke to Respondent who held himself out as the attorney who would be working on A.H.’s case. In reliance on Respondent’s representations, A.H. retained the firm to represent him.
Beginning in November 2020 and continuing through 2021, Respondent communicated with A.H. in a manner that indicated that he was the attorney working on his matter. In emails to A.H. on March 29, 2021, and April 7, 2021, Respondent falsely represented to A.H. that he was pursuing legal matters and filing documents on his behalf. Respondent also falsely told A.H. about hearings and about negotiations taking place with governmental entities on his behalf.
Respondent’s statements to A.H. were false in that no documents had been filed on his behalf with any court and no hearings or negotiations were taking place. Respondent knew that his statements to A.H. were false at the time he made them because Respondent had not filed anything on his behalf and was not negotiating with anyone on his behalf.
There are similar allegations involving two other clients.
As a result of a complaint in Michigan
Respondent failed to respond to the complaint of the Michigan Grievance Administrator and on May 4, 2023, a default judgment was entered against him. Subsequently, on January 30, 2024, the Michigan Attorney Disciplinary Board entered an order suspending Respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for one year.
(Mike Frisch)