Published: June 26, 2025
Jonathan D. Abrahams (P46642), a Farmington Hills attorney, has received a public reprimand with conditions following allegations of professional misconduct related to his representation of a Michigan family injured in an automobile accident in Florida.
The disciplinary action, which took effect on June 13, 2025, was the result of a consent agreement between Abrahams and the Michigan Attorney Grievance Administrator, approved by Tri-County Hearing Panel #104.
Background: Representation Without Proper Licensure
According to the formal complaint, Abrahams took on a case involving personal injury claims stemming from an auto accident that occurred in Florida. However, he did not inform his clients that he was not licensed to practice law in Florida. Compounding the issue, he failed to adequately communicate with the insurance company and his clients, missed critical deadlines, and failed to notify the family of important developments or settlement offers.
As a result of this lack of diligence, the personal injury protection (PIP) claims were closed, and the value of the third-party claims was ultimately reduced—causing measurable harm to the clients.
Misconduct Findings
Based on Abrahams’ no contest plea and the jointly submitted stipulation, the panel found multiple violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) and Michigan Court Rules:
- MRPC 1.3 – Lack of reasonable diligence and promptness.
- MRPC 1.4(a) – Failure to keep clients reasonably informed or respond to requests for information.
- MRPC 1.4(b) – Failure to explain matters sufficiently to allow informed client decisions.
- MRPC 3.2 – Failure to expedite litigation consistent with client interests.
- MCR 9.104(2) – Conduct that brings disrepute or censure to the legal profession.
Outcome: Reprimand and Conditions Imposed
The panel issued a formal reprimand and imposed conditions tailored to the misconduct. While details of those conditions were not disclosed in the public notice, such terms typically involve additional education, monitoring, or client restitution depending on the case.
Abrahams also incurred $1,235.76 in assessed costs related to the disciplinary proceedings.
Conclusion
This case highlights the ethical and legal risks attorneys face when working across state lines without proper licensure or clear client communication. Even in situations where clients are unaware of technical licensing issues, the onus remains on the attorney to maintain transparency, diligence, and responsiveness.
Stay tuned for more updates on attorney discipline matters in Michigan.
Have tips on corruption or misconduct? Contact Clutch.
