NOTICE OF SUSPENSION
(By Consent)
Case No. 25-53-GA
Notice Issued: February 4, 2026
Jalal J. Dallo, P 72879, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
Suspension - 45 Days, Effective February 4, 2026
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #4. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 4, and respondent's no‑contest pleas to the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 5 through 62 of the first amended formal complaint. Additionally, the stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in paragraphs 63(b), and 63(d) through (i) of the first amended formal complaint. Specifically, it was alleged that during respondent’s representation of a client in a criminal matter, he accepted an envelope of documents from his client to provide to a third person, some of which contained requests and demands for the third person to contact the victim in the matter in order to convince her to change her testimony. Due to his conduct, respondent eventually withdrew from the representation and was eventually removed from the Oakland County Indigent Defense Services Office list of approved attorneys. The stipulation also contained the parties' agreement that the allegations of professional misconduct in paragraphs 63(a) and 63(c) of the first amended formal complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The stipulation further contained the parties’ agreement that, upon the panel's acceptance of the parties' agreement, respondent would be suspended for a period of 45 days.
Based on respondent’s admissions and no contest pleas, the panel found that respondent: knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); knowingly assisted or induced another to violate the rules or obligations under the rules of a tribunal, or did so through the acts of another, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and, engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law be suspended for 45 days, effective February 4, 2026. Costs were assessed in the amount of $773.20