Opinion
Misc. 21-51567
11-13-2024
In Re ERNEST FRIEDMAN (P26642), Petitioner.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S REINSTATEMENT APPLICATION (ECF NO. 21)
Petitioner Ernest Friedman is a member of the State Bar of Michigan who is admitted to practice before this Court. In 2020, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board (the “ADB”) issued a Notice of Suspension suspending Friedman from the practice of law for sixty days. (See Notice, ECF No. 1.) The ADB transmitted the Notice of Suspension to this Court, and Chief Judge Denise Page Hood subsequently suspended Friedman from practicing before this Court and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to Local Rule 83.22(g). (See Order of Suspension, ECF No. 2.) That rule provides, in relevant part, that “[o]n receipt of written notice that another jurisdiction imposed discipline against an attorney admitted to practice in this court, the chief judge will enter an order imposing the same discipline, effective as of the date that the discipline was effective in the other jurisdiction.” E.D. Mich. Local Rule 83.22(g)(1).
Friedman thereafter filed an affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 83.22(i)(1) seeking to be reinstated to the practice of law before this Court. (See Aff., ECF No. 3.) In that affidavit, Friedman said that he had “fully complied with all the terms and conditions of [his] suspension” and that he had been “reinstated to practice law” in the Michigan state courts. (Id., PageID.21.) Chief Judge Hood subsequently entered an order appointing the Michigan Attorney Grievance Administrator as “of counsel” in this matter. (See Order, ECF No. 5.) On March 7, 2022, the Grievance Administrator filed a Reinstatement Report with the Panel. (See Rpt., ECF No. 8.) In the Reinstatement Report, the Grievance Administrator acknowledged that Friedman's license to practice law in Michigan had been reinstated, but she also noted that Friedman was then “the subject of three [additional] disciplinary investigations.” (Id. at PageID.42.) Based on these additional disciplinary investigations, this Panel “conclude[d] that the appropriate course of action [was] to hold Friedman's request for reinstatement in abeyance pending the resolution of the open disciplinary investigations identified in the Reinstatement Report.” (Order, ECF No. 13, PageID.233.)
On June 26, 2024, the Grievance Coordinator filed a motion to dismiss Friedman's request for reinstatement. (See Mot., ECF No. 21.) In that motion, the Grievance Coordinator explained that a tri-county hearing panel had found that Friedman had engaged in misconduct that would likely lead to an additional suspension from the practice of law, and she argued, among other things, that “[a]ny [new] suspension by the ADB would result in a reciprocal suspension in this court under 83.22(g)(1)(A).” (Id., PageID.272.) The Grievance Coordinator therefore asked this Panel to dismiss Friedman's application for reinstatement. (See id., PageID.273.) The ADB thereafter suspended Friedman from the practice of law for 180 days, effective as of October 21, 2024. (See Notice of Suspension, ECF No. 25.)
In light of the ADB's new suspension, Friedman will also face an additional suspension in this Court under Local Rule 83.22(g). Thus, there is no basis to reinstate Friedman's ability to practice law in this Court at this time. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT the Grievance Coordinator's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) and DISMISS Friedman's application for reinstatement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, JUDITH E. LEVY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.