MEMBERS JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD
MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR — KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL — SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR —
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER — JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY —
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147
PHONE: 313-963-5553
www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 20-53-GA Notice Issued: August 19, 2021 Edward Czuprynski, P 34114, Bay City, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-Valley Hearing Panel #1.
Suspension - 270 Days, Effective August 18, 2021 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 the hearing panel. Based on respondent’s admissions as set forth in the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct as charged in a three-count Formal Complaint filed against respondent.
Specifically, as to Count One, respondent admitted that during the pendency of a civil suit he filed against another attorney in December 2015, for allegedly failing to repay a loan, respondent wrongfully entered a default and default judgment against the defendant before responsive pleadings were due. After the default was set aside, and despite being twice ordered to pay sanctions to the defendant and held in contempt by the court, respondent did not pay the ordered sanctions until his arrest on July 7, 2018.
As to Count Two, respondent admitted that he was retained to represent Calvin Eaton regarding serious injuries he suffered in a car accident while he was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by Jamie Humpert, and owned by Mr. Humpert’s employer, Esckilsen & Sons Painting LLC. Respondent further admitted that he filed suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) on Mr. Eaton’s behalf and filed a separate action against Mr. Humpert and his employer. Simultaneously, and unbeknownst to Mr. Eaton, respondent represented Mr. Humpert after he was criminally charged with driving while license suspended. Respondent admitted that he failed to respond to State Farm’s motion for summary disposition and seriously hindered Mr. Eaton’s ability to recover significant benefits as a result of his injuries. After he was discharged, and Mr. Eaton retained new counsel, respondent admitted that he asserted a lien on settlement proceeds Mr. Eaton’s new counsel was able to negotiate, claiming he was owed $12,500 in attorney fees and expenses. This was challenged and respondent was subsequently awarded $5,000, which was later reversed on appeal. In the meantime, Mr. Eaton’s new counsel filed a legal malpractice action against respondent, and Mr. Eaton filed a request for investigation
August 19, 2021
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
Page 2
(RI) against respondent with the Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC). Respondent admitted that during mediation of the malpractice matter, he demanded the dismissal of Mr. Eaton’s grievance. After Mr. Eaton wrote to the AGC and requested his RI be withdrawn, respondent admitted that he falsely claimed to the AGC that Mr. Eaton brought the RI into the negotiations by offering to withdraw it for payment of an additional $1,000.
Count Three involved an appeal to the Bay County Circuit Court filed by respondent’s former tenant, the plaintiff in a District Court action filed against respondent, after an insufficient judgment was rendered in her favor by the District Court. Respondent admitted that he moved for the assigned judge’s disqualification, and that the judge subsequently issued an order finding, in part, that (1) respondent’s motion did not assert or present a proper factual basis for disqualification; (2) that it was untimely; and, (3) that his motion, other pleadings, and his sworn affidavits contained several false statements made by respondent without making reasonable inquiry or due diligence regarding their factual accuracy. Respondent further admitted that he was also ordered to pay $2,400 in sanctions, that he was found in civil contempt for failing to pay the ordered sanctions, and that he was ordered to pay additional sanctions for delaying the case.
The panel found that respondent failed to provide competent representation to a client, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (Count Two); neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (Count Two); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 (Count Two); represented a client where the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, in violation of MRPC 1.7(b) (Count Two); knowingly made false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal or failed to correct a false statement of material fact or law 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, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) (Counts One and Three); failed to abide by, and violated, the requirements of MCR 1.109(E) (formerly MCR 2.114), in violation of MCR 9.104(4) (Count Three); and entered into an agreement providing that the plaintiff shall withdraw a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(10)(b) (Count Two). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) (Counts One - Three); and MRPC 8.4(b)-(c) (Count Two).
In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 270 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,179.59.