NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITION
(By Consent)
Case No. 25-1-GA
Notice Issued: October 27, 2025
Zachary Hallman, P 78327, Dearborn, Michigan
Suspension - 30 Days, Effective December 1, 2025[1]
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #17. The stipulation contained respondent's admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct in the formal complaint, namely that respondent, after filing a complaint on behalf of a client in a wrongful termination/employment discrimination case, failed to serve the complaint on the named defendant, which resulted in the court dismissing the case without prejudice and denying a subsequent motion to reinstate. Respondent also filed a claim of appeal on behalf of the client, which was dismissed because it was not timely filed.
Based upon respondent’s admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent: failed to provide competent representation to his client, in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek lawful objectives of client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and, or failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client, in violation of MRPC 3.2; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the 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); and, engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days, effective December 1, 2025, that he pay restitution totaling $500, and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,328.04.
[1] The hearing panel found that there was sufficient good cause for the suspension of respondent’s license to become effective on December 1, 2025, as agreed to by the parties, to allow time for respondent to obtain coverage for his practice during the period of suspension.