Posted: June 25, 2025
Jon H. Berkey (P10728), an attorney residing in La Jolla, California, has been suspended from the practice of law in Michigan for 90 days, effective June 25, 2025. The suspension comes after Berkey entered into a Second Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline with the Michigan Attorney Grievance Administrator.
The agreement—filed under MCR 9.115(F)(5) and approved by Tri-County Hearing Panel #14—included admissions of misconduct stemming from a series of ethical violations across multiple fronts.
Violations: IOLTA Misuse, Unauthorized Practice, and False Advertising
Berkey’s misconduct, as outlined in the Third Amended Formal Complaint, included:
- Misuse of his IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account): Holding personal funds in excess of what was reasonably necessary for service charges (MRPC 1.15(f)).
- Unauthorized Practice of Law: Practicing law while residing in California without proper licensing (MRPC 5.5(a)).
- False and Misleading Advertising: Using letterhead and promotional materials that suggested he was authorized to practice in California, and implying a firm structure that did not exist (MRPC 7.1 and 7.5(d)).
- Failure to Respond Honestly to Investigators: Including knowingly providing false statements to the Grievance Administrator and failing to respond to lawful requests for information (MRPC 8.1(a)(2)).
Additionally, Berkey failed to maintain a valid address with the State Bar of Michigan, further complicating oversight and communication.
Panel Findings and Sanctions
After reviewing the stipulation and Berkey’s admissions, the panel found that he:
- Violated multiple Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules regarding trust accounts, unauthorized practice, false advertising, and cooperation with disciplinary investigations.
- Engaged in conduct that violated MCR 9.104, which governs standards of professional behavior adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Disciplinary Outcome
The hearing panel imposed a 90-day suspension of Berkey’s Michigan law license and imposed conditions tied to the nature of his misconduct. He must meet these conditions in order to return to good standing.
Additionally, costs in the amount of $1,985.13 were assessed against him.
Why It Matters
This case serves as a cautionary example for attorneys practicing across state lines and managing public representations of their licensure and qualifications. Attorneys must adhere to professional rules not only in their home state but in any jurisdiction in which they advertise or offer legal services.
Full transparency with clients and disciplinary bodies is not optional—it’s a requirement of the profession.
Stay tuned for more updates on professional conduct and accountability in the legal field.
