STATE OF MICHIGAN Attorney Discipline Board
GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Attorney Grievance Commission,
Petitioner/Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v SCOTT E. COMBS, P 37554 Respondent/Appellant/Cross-Appellee. /
Case No. 15-154-GA
2021-Apr-01
ORDER INCREASING DISCIPLINE FROM A THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION TO DISBARMENT AND MODIFYING RESTITUTION
Issued by the Attorney Discipline Board 333 W. Fort St., Ste. 1700, Detroit, MI
On June 19, 2020, Tri-County Hearing Panel #7 of the Attorney Discipline Board issued an order suspending respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan for a period of three years commencing July 11, 2020. Respondent filed a timely petition for review seeking a decrease in the discipline imposed by the hearing panel, a decrease in the restitution imposed by the hearing panel, and requested an interim stay of 60 days to allow for preparation of a full petition for a stay of discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(K). The Grievance Administrator opposed respondent’s request for an interim stay and filed a timely cross-petition for review seeking an increase in the discipline imposed by the hearing panel. The Board granted the interim stay for an abbreviated time frame.
Respondent filed his full motion to stay the hearing panel’s order. After considering the positions of the parties, the Board granted respondent’s petition for a stay of restitution, pending review, and denied respondent’s petition for a stay of discipline ordering that the three-year suspension of respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan begin on October 8, 2020.
On October 5, 2020, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, and the Grievance Administrator filed a response that same day. The Board denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on October 13, 2020, but granted a stay, nunc pro tunc, from October 8, 2020, to October 13, 2020.
The Attorney Discipline Board has conducted virtual review proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, which included a review of the record before the hearing panel and consideration of the arguments and briefs presented by the parties. For the reasons discussed in the attached opinion, discipline is increased to disbarment and the restitution provision is modified to the amount of $19,252.10.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that discipline in this case is increased from a suspension of three years to a DISBARMENT EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 14, 2020, and until further order of the Supreme Court, the Attorney Discipline Board or a hearing panel, and until respondent complies with the requirements of MCR 9.123(B) and (C); and MCR 9.124.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall not be eligible for reinstatement in accordance with MCR 9.123(B) unless respondent has fully complied with the restitution provisions of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall comply with all applicable provisions of MCR 9.119.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution amount is MODIFIED and that respondent shall, on or before April 30, 2021, pay restitution in the amount of $19,252.10 to Carl Novick. Respondent shall file written proof of payment with the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Attorney Discipline Board within 10 days of the payment of restitution.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall pay court reporting costs incurred by the Board for the review hearing conducted on October 21, 2021, in the amount of $264.41. This cost shall be added to the payment plan currently in effect. Respondent's final payment shall now be due on or before November 2, 2022, in the amount of $264.41. Please refer to the attached cost payment instruction sheet for method and forms of payment accepted.
By:
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
Jonathan E. Lauderbach, Chairperson
Dated: April 1, 2021
Board members Jonathan E. Lauderbach, Michael B. Rizik, Jr., Barbara Williams Forney, Karen O'Donoghue, Linda Hotchkiss, M.D., Michael Hohauser, and Peter Smit concur in this decision.
Board member Linda M. Orlans would have affirmed the hearing panel's decision in its entirety. Board member Alan Gershel was recused and did not participate.
2