NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS
(By Consent)
Case No. 22-10-GA
Notice Issued: December 18, 2023
Suzanna Kostovski, P 39535, Detroit, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #5
Suspension - 90 Days, Effective December 14, 2023
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to all of the factual allegations and respondent’s plea of no contest to all of the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the four-count formal complaint.
Specifically, the panel found in Count One that, while acting as appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings, respondent communicated sporadically with her client and failed to file pleadings as instructed by the court. In Count Two, the panel found that, while acting as appointed appellate counsel, respondent had minimal communication with her client and, filed a delayed application for leave to appeal brief that was nonconforming in that it failed to contain citations to the trial court record as required.
The panel found in Count Three that, while acting as substitute appellate counsel, respondent failed to file a supplemental brief provided to her by her client in July 2019, until April 2020, at which time respondent had to also file a motion to file a late brief. The motion was denied by the Court of Appeals, in part because it did not provide any explanation for the delay, and did not cite any law. The panel found in Count Four that, while acting as appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings, respondent failed to communicate with her client, failed to take any action on his behalf for fourteen months, and eventually had to be replaced by the State Appellate Defender’s Office.
Based on respondent's admissions, plea of no contest, and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent handled a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances, in violation of MRPC 1.1(b) (Counts Two and Three); neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (Counts One and Four); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available means permitted by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) (Counts One-Four); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3 (Counts One-Four); failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (Counts One-Four); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b) (Counts One-Four); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) (Counts One-Four); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) (Counts One-Four); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2) (Counts One-Four); and, engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (Counts One-Four).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days and that she be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct, effective December 1, 2023. Respondent subsequently filed a motion requesting that the order of suspension be amended to extend the effective date to December 14, 2023. The Grievance Administrator had no objection. The panel granted respondent’s motion in an order issued December 1, 2023. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,047.96.