The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has imposed a four-year suspension with restitution and conditions against Craig A. Tank (P58360) of St. Clair Shores, Michigan, following findings of extensive professional misconduct spanning eleven separate client matters and a failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
The suspension is effective March 1, 2025.
🔗 Michigan Court Rules – Chapter 9 (Attorney Discipline, including MCR 9.115)
🔗 Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (PDF)
Case Overview
- Respondent: Craig A. Tank, P58360
- City: St. Clair Shores, Michigan
- County: Macomb
- Case Number: 22-91-GA
- Notice Issued: November 14, 2025
- Discipline: Four-Year Suspension, Restitution, and Conditions
- Effective Date: March 1, 2025
Scope of the Misconduct
Following proceedings conducted under MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found misconduct based on Mr. Tank’s no-contest pleas to all twelve counts in the formal complaint.
The misconduct occurred across eleven distinct client matters, primarily involving criminal defense representations, post-conviction proceedings, appeals, and related legal services. One count also addressed Mr. Tank’s failure to respond to multiple requests for investigation.
The counts included, among others:
- Failure to inform a criminal client that his law license was about to be suspended
- Mishandling multiple motions for relief from judgment under MCR 6.500
- Neglect of appellate and post-conviction matters
- Mishandling client funds and failing to refund unearned fees
- Creating undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Holding himself out as authorized to practice in federal court when he was not
- Continuing to present himself as a lawyer after suspension
Rules Violated
Based on respondent’s pleas, the panel found violations of numerous provisions of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, including but not limited to:
- MRPC 1.1(c) – Neglect of legal matters
- MRPC 1.2(a) – Failure to seek lawful objectives of clients
- MRPC 1.3 – Lack of diligence and promptness
- MRPC 1.4(a) – Failure to keep clients informed
- MRPC 1.7 – Conflict of interest without disclosure or consent
- MRPC 1.15(d), (g) – Misappropriation and mishandling of client funds
- MRPC 1.16(d) – Failure to protect client interests upon termination
- MRPC 5.5(b)(2) – Unauthorized practice of law
- MRPC 8.1(a)(2) – Failure to respond to disciplinary authorities
- MRPC 8.4(b), (c) – Dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to justice
The panel also found violations of MCR 9.104(1)–(3), (6), (7), and (9), including misconduct exposing the profession to reproach, misrepresentations during investigations, failure to answer requests for investigation, and violation of prior disciplinary orders.
Discipline and Procedural History
- The hearing panel initially ordered disbarment, effective March 1, 2025, along with $21,400 in restitution.
- Mr. Tank petitioned for review under MCR 9.118.
- After review, the Attorney Discipline Board reduced the sanction from disbarment to a four-year suspension, affirmed restitution, and imposed additional conditions relevant to the misconduct.
- A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on October 14, 2025.
Total costs assessed: $10,145.80
Why This Matters
This case illustrates how patterned neglect across multiple clients, combined with financial misconduct and non-cooperation, can result in discipline approaching the most severe end of the spectrum. While the Board ultimately reduced the sanction from disbarment, the four-year suspension with restitution and conditions reflects the seriousness of repeated failures in competence, honesty, and professional responsibility.
The decision also highlights the Board’s role in calibrating discipline when misconduct is extensive but not deemed permanently disqualifying.
