On Friday, August 1, 2025, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board issued a notice announcing the suspension of attorney Ernest Friedman for a period of 180 days. This suspension took effect on October 18, 2024. The decision follows a hearing conducted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #57, which assessed evidence related to multiple counts of professional misconduct.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Ernest Friedman,” with case no. 23-84-GA.
The panel’s investigation revealed two primary areas of concern. The first involved the management of an Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA), while the second was related to a previous suspension stemming from misconduct in the case titled Grievance Administrator v. Ernest Friedman, 18-37-GA.
The panel determined that Friedman violated several provisions of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) and the Michigan Court Rules (MCR). Specifically, he failed to promptly pay or deliver funds that clients or third parties were entitled to receive, which contravened MRPC 1.15(b)(3). Additionally, he did not maintain client property separately from his own, as required by MRPC 1.15(d). Friedman also deposited excessive funds into the IOLTA beyond what was necessary to cover financial institution service charges, violating MRPC 1.15(f).
Further misconduct included failing to notify all active clients of his suspension through written communication via registered or certified mail, as mandated by MCR 9.119(A). He also neglected to file a notice of his disqualification from the practice of law with the appropriate tribunal and parties, violating MCR 9.119(B). Moreover, Friedman was found to have submitted a false reinstatement affidavit, breaching MCR 9.123(A).
The panel’s findings indicated that Friedman’s actions were not only violations of specific rules but also of broader ethical standards outlined in MCR 9.104(1)(2)(3) and (4).
In response to the panel’s decision, Friedman filed a petition for review on October 10, 2024, as permitted under MCR 9.118. He also sought a stay of the suspension under MCR 9.115(K). However, his petition for a stay was denied by the Board on October 17, 2024. Following further proceedings, the Board upheld some of the panel’s findings while vacating others, but ultimately affirmed the 180-day suspension.
In total, Friedman was assessed costs amounting to $3,598.59 associated with the disciplinary proceedings.
According to Avvo.com, Mr. Friedman is a personal injury attorney in Southfield, Michigan. He attended Wayne State University Law School, graduating in 1975. He acquired his law license in Michigan in 1976.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
