On Monday, August 25, 2025, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board issued a notice announcing the disbarment of attorney Sufi Y. Ahmad, effective August 23, 2025.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Sufi Y. Ahmad,” with case nos. 23-67-GA and 25-10-GA.
The charges citedi Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c), 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(b)(3), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.1(a)(2) and Michigan Court Rules 9.104(1), 9.104(2), 9.104(3), 9.104(4), and 9.104(7).
The disbarment followed a stipulated Consent Order of Discipline, which Ahmad and the Grievance Administrator filed. This agreement was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #16. The stipulation included Ahmad’s no-contest pleas to various factual allegations related to his handling of legal matters.
According to the notice, Ahmad neglected several legal issues on behalf of his clients, failed to manage settlement proceeds appropriately, and did not petition the court for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for a minor in a probate case. Additionally, he mishandled multiple legal matters, entered into a settlement without securing his client’s consent, and neglected to respond to multiple requests for investigation.
The hearing panel’s findings were based on Ahmad’s no-contest pleas and the stipulation. The panel determined that Ahmad violated several professional conduct rules. Key violations included neglecting a legal matter, failing to seek lawful objectives for clients, and not acting with diligence and promptness. He also failed to keep clients reasonably informed about their cases and did not promptly pay or deliver funds owed to clients or third parties.
Further violations included failing to separate property claims when multiple parties asserted interests and not depositing client or third-party funds into the appropriate trust accounts. Ahmad’s actions also involved making false statements, disobeying tribunal obligations, and engaging in conduct that violated professional standards.
The panel also found that Ahmad engaged in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, and misrepresentation. His actions were prejudicial to the administration of justice, exposing the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, and reproach. Additionally, he engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, and good morals, and knowingly failed to timely respond to lawful requests for information from disciplinary authorities.
According to Avvo.com, Mr. Ahmad was an attorney in Detroit, Michigan. He acquired his law license in Michigan in 1989.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
