The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has suspended Zachary Hallman (P78327) of Dearborn, Michigan, for 30 days, ordered him to pay $500 in restitution, and imposed additional conditions following professional misconduct in an employment discrimination case.
The discipline was imposed by consent under Michigan Court Rule 9.115(F)(5) and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #17.
🔗 Michigan Court Rules – Chapter 9 (Attorney Discipline, including MCR 9.115)
🔗 Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (PDF)
Case Overview
- Respondent: Zachary Hallman, P78327
- Location: Dearborn, Michigan
- Case Number: 25-1-GA
- Notice Issued: October 27, 2025
Mr. Hallman and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for consent discipline, which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel.
Underlying Misconduct
According to the stipulation, Mr. Hallman represented a client in a wrongful termination and employment discrimination matter. After filing the complaint, he failed to serve the named defendant, resulting in the court dismissing the case without prejudice. A subsequent motion to reinstate the case was denied.
Mr. Hallman later filed a claim of appeal on behalf of the client. That appeal was dismissed as untimely, foreclosing further review.
Rules Violated
Based on respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, including:
- MRPC 1.1(a) – Failure to provide competent representation
- MRPC 1.1(c) – Neglect of a legal matter
- MRPC 1.2(a) – Failure to seek lawful objectives of a client
- MRPC 1.3 – Lack of diligence and promptness
- MRPC 1.4(a) – Failure to keep a client reasonably informed
- MRPC 3.2 – Failure to expedite litigation consistent with client interests
- MCR 9.104(1) – Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
- MCR 9.104(2) – Conduct exposing the profession or courts to reproach
- MCR 9.104(3) – Conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals
Discipline Imposed
In accordance with the consent order, the hearing panel ordered that:
- Zachary Hallman be suspended for 30 days, effective December 1, 2025
- Restitution of $500 be paid
- Conditions be imposed relevant to the established misconduct
- Costs of $1,328.04 be assessed
The panel found good cause to delay the effective date of suspension to allow Mr. Hallman time to arrange coverage for his practice during the suspension period.
Why This Matters
This case highlights how missed service deadlines and untimely appeals can irreversibly harm a client’s case. Even where a dismissal is without prejudice, procedural failures can cascade into lost claims and closed appellate avenues. The discipline imposed reflects the system’s emphasis on diligence, communication, and basic procedural competence as core professional obligations.
