NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITION
(By Consent)
Case No. 24-91-GA
Notice Issued: May 21, 2025
Sean W. Drew, P 33851, Niles, Michigan
Suspension - 30 Days, Effective May 21, 2025
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Kent County Hearing Panel #2. The amended stipulation contained respondent's admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint. Specifically, that respondent commingled his personal and/or business funds with client funds and improperly paid business and/or personal expenses out of the IOLTA, and that he failed to answer the request for investigation regarding the aforementioned misconduct.
Based upon respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ amended stipulation, the panel finds that respondent failed to safeguard client property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d)[1] [Count One]; commingled his personal funds with client funds, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) [Count One]; having received notification that an instrument presented against the trust account was presented
against insufficient funds or that any other debit to such account would create a negative balance in the account, whether or not the instrument or other debit was honored, failed to, upon receipt of a request for investigation from the Grievance Administrator, provide the Grievance Administrator, in writing, within 21 days after issuance of such request, a full and fair explanation of the cause of the overdraft and how it was corrected, in violation of MRPC 1.15A(f) [Count Two]; failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) [Count Two]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) [Counts One and Two]; 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 and Two]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [Counts One and Two]; and failed to answer a Request for Investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(B)(2) [Count Two].
In accordance with the amended stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,344.90.
[1] Although the formal complaint failed to include the applicable subsection of MRPC 1.15, the language and conduct at issue falls under MRPC 1.15(d).