The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has issued a reprimand against Laurel Meyers Byrnes (P84831) of Colorado Springs, Colorado, effective August 14, 2025, following the imposition of reciprocal discipline based on an order entered by the Colorado Supreme Court.
The action was taken pursuant to Michigan’s attorney discipline framework, including proceedings under Michigan Court Rule 9.115.
Background: Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings
According to the notice, the Grievance Administrator filed a Notice of Filing of Reciprocal Discipline under MCR 9.120(C), attaching a certified copy of an order entered by the Supreme Court of Colorado on December 18, 2024.
In that matter, People v Laurel Meyers Byrnes, Colorado Discipline Case 24PDJ040, the Colorado Supreme Court ordered Byrnes suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, with the suspension stayed upon successful completion of a two-year probationary period subject to additional conditions.
On May 28, 2025, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board issued an order directing the parties to notify the Board within 21 days of any objection to the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan and whether a hearing was requested.
No objections were filed. The response period expired, and Byrnes was deemed to be in default.
Panel Order and Sanctions
As a result of the default and the reciprocal discipline process, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that:
- Byrnes be reprimanded in Michigan, effective August 14, 2025.
- Byrnes pay costs in the amount of $1,511.54.
The Board noted that because Michigan’s discipline system does not include a stayed suspension as a disciplinary option, a reprimand constitutes an appropriate and comparable form of discipline under Michigan rules.
What This Means
Reciprocal discipline ensures that attorney sanctions imposed in one jurisdiction are recognized and addressed in others where the attorney is licensed. When no objection is raised, Michigan’s system allows the Attorney Discipline Board to impose discipline that is comparable within the structure of Michigan’s rules.
This case illustrates how out-of-state discipline can result in public sanctions in Michigan, even where the underlying suspension in another jurisdiction is stayed or probationary.
