Sanction Affirmed

The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board affirmed findings of misconduct and the imposition of a 30-day suspension by a hearing panel

The board vacated a misconduct finding in one count

As we noted above, respondent’s failure to take any action on Mr. Blackman’s behalf after the dismissal of the initial motion, coupled with her false statements to her client, supports a finding of lack of diligence, in violation of MRPC 1.3. However, this was not a case that respondent allowed to sit idle, missed discovery dates, or engaged in a prolonged period of silence toward a client. The conditions are simply not present in this case for a finding of neglect, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c). This finding is vacated.

A second count

Here, there is no question that both respondent and the Yatzeks were proceeding under the belief that respondent had been hired to file the motion for compassionate release. Had respondent not believed that she had been hired to complete this work, there would have been no reason for her to memorialize the work she was going to do or to lie about having already done it. The fact that there had not yet been a definitive conversation regarding respondent’s fee does not, in itself, establish the lack of an attorney client relationship, and the overwhelming evidence in the record indicates both that respondent was counsel for the Yatzeks, and that she committed the misconduct found by the panel. The panel’s findings in Count Two are also affirmed.

Next, respondent argues that the imposition of a 30-day suspension in this matter was excessive. In reviewing the sanction imposed by a hearing panel, the responsibility of the Board “is to ensure consistency and continuity in discipline imposed by panels.” However, the Board does afford a certain level of deference to a hearing panel’s subjective judgment on the level of discipline. Grievance Administrator v Gregory J. Reed, 10-140-GA (ADB 2014). Traditionally, the Board will not disturb a panel’s determination as to the appropriate level of discipline unless it is clearly contrary to fairly uniform precedent for very similar conduct or is clearly outside the range of sanctions imposed for the type of violation at issue. Grievance Administrator v Jeffrey R. Sharp, 19-80-GA (ADB 2020); Grievance Administrator v Christopher S. Easthope, 17-136-GA (ADB 2021).

Here, the level of discipline has not been shown to be clearly outside the range of sanctions typically imposed for the conduct or clearly contrary to precedent…

We further find that a 30-day suspension is the proper sanction for respondent’s conduct. We agree with the panel that respondent’s blatant dishonesty is very troubling and warrants a suspension. However, the panel further found that the conduct was mitigated because it resulted, in part, from personal or emotional issues that respondent was suffering from at the time, including the loss of a loved one in early 2019, and being diagnosed with depression and later attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), for which she has since received treatment with medication and talk therapy. (Tr 8/28/24, pp 8-9.) The panel’s analysis as to the appropriate sanction in this matter is sound, and correctly balances the seriousness of the misconduct with the relative lack of actual injury to the clients and the mitigation presented by respondent.

(Mike Frisch)