The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has ordered a three-year suspension of Tyler N. Ross (P75530) of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, following a consent discipline agreement arising from a federal felony conviction.
The suspension stems from proceedings conducted pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 9.115, which governs attorney discipline matters.
Background: Consent Discipline and Automatic Suspension
According to the notice, Ross and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline under MCR 9.115(F)(5). The stipulation was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #58.
Ross admitted that he was convicted by guilty plea of one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, a felony, in violation of 18 USC § 371, in United States of America v Tyler N. Ross, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-cr-20451.
Pursuant to MCR 9.120(B)(1), Ross’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended, effective September 28, 2023, the date of his conviction.
Misconduct Findings
Based on Ross’s admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the hearing panel found that he committed professional misconduct by:
- Engaging in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).
- Engaging in conduct involving a violation of criminal law that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer, constituting professional misconduct under MRPC 8.4(b).
Panel Order and Sanctions
In accordance with the consent stipulation, the hearing panel ordered that:
- Ross’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for a period of three years, effective September 28, 2023.
- Ross pay costs in the amount of $892.38.
What This Means
Michigan’s attorney discipline rules treat certain criminal convictions as grounds for automatic suspension and further disciplinary action. Federal felony convictions that reflect adversely on a lawyer’s fitness trigger mandatory reporting, immediate license consequences, and formal discipline proceedings.
This case illustrates how criminal conduct outside the practice of law can result in long-term professional sanctions under Michigan’s disciplinary framework.
