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 REPRIMAND (By Consent)
Case No. 21-3-GA Notice Issued: May 5, 2021 Craig S. Romanzi, P 45549, Rochester, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #52.
Reprimand, Effective May 5, 2021 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline and Waiver, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct in a malpractice case filed against him by a former client, which resulted in respondent being held in contempt of court and jailed for five days in January 2016, and when he responded “no” to a question that asked if he was ever held in contempt of court in his March 2018 petition to be admitted to practice in the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent failed to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1); unlawfully obstructed another party’s access to evidence, in violation of MRPC 3.4(a); knowingly disobeyed his obligations under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1) and (2).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $937.50.