The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has ordered a one-year suspension of Amy Lillian Colston (P64742) of Kalamazoo, Michigan, effective October 25, 2025, based on reciprocal discipline stemming from prior sanctions imposed in New York and California.
The discipline was imposed pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 9.120 and resolved through a consent order accepted by a hearing panel.
Reciprocal Discipline From Other Jurisdictions
According to the notice, the Grievance Administrator filed a notice of filing of reciprocal discipline under MCR 9.120(C), attaching certified copies of disciplinary orders from multiple jurisdictions:
- New York
- Interim suspension effective October 25, 2017, following a criminal conviction
- One-year suspension effective October 25, 2017
- Issued by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
- California
- Disbarment, effective March 15, 2019
- Issued by the Supreme Court of California
At the time of the New York and California proceedings, respondent’s last name was Vichinsky. Her current State Bar of Michigan record reflects the name Colston.
Consent Discipline in Michigan
Colston and the Grievance Administrator entered into a stipulation for consent order of discipline under MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission.
The matter was reviewed by Kalamazoo County Hearing Panel #2, which requested additional clarification from the Grievance Administrator before determining that the stipulated discipline was reasonable and consistent with the goals of Michigan’s attorney discipline system.
Findings and Order
Based on the certified disciplinary orders from New York and California, and Colston’s acknowledgments in the stipulation, the panel found misconduct under MCR 9.120(C)(1).
The panel ordered that:
- Colston’s license to practice law in Michigan is suspended for one year, effective October 25, 2025
- Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,115.58
Why This Matters
Michigan’s reciprocal discipline rules are designed to prevent attorneys disciplined in other jurisdictions from continuing to practice without consequence. When suspensions or disbarments are imposed elsewhere, Michigan generally imposes comparable discipline unless specific exceptions apply. This case reflects how multi-state misconduct follows attorneys across jurisdictions.
