NOTICE OF DISBARMENT AND RESTITUTION
Case No. 24-62-GA
Notice Issued: May 15, 2025
Michael Orrin King, Jr., P 71345, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Disbarment, Effective May 15, 2025[1]
After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Kent County Hearing Panel #1 found, by default, that respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of three clients in separate matters, and by failing to meaningfully participate in the Grievance Administrator's requests for investigations brought by those former clients.
Based on respondent's default and the evidence presented by the Grievance Administrator, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [Counts One, Three, Five]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 [Counts One, Three, Five]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4 [Counts One, Three, Five]; failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) [Counts One, Three, Five]; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the 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) [Count One]; engaged in conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) [All Counts]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) [All Counts]; engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2) [All Counts]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [All Counts]; knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Counts Two, Four, Six]; and failed to answer the Request for Investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2), and in violation of MCR 9.104(7) [Count Six].
The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred, and that he pay restitution in the total amount of $10,300.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,234.48.
[1] Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since February 27, 2025. See Notice of Interim Suspension Pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(1), issued March 3, 2025.