The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has ordered that Byron E. Siegel (P20428) of Bingham Farms, Michigan be transferred to disability inactive status, following reciprocal discipline proceedings arising from an Arizona order.
The transfer is effective December 23, 2025.
🔗 Michigan Court Rules – Chapter 9 (Attorney Discipline, including MCR 9.115, 9.120, and 9.121)
Case Overview
- Respondent: Byron E. Siegel, P20428
- City: Bingham Farms, Michigan
- County: Oakland
- Case Number: 25-24-RD
- Notice Issued: January 6, 2026
- Status: Transfer to Disability Inactive Status
- Effective Date: December 23, 2025
Background and Procedural History
The Grievance Administrator filed a Notice of Filing of Reciprocal Discipline under MCR 9.120(C), attaching a certified order issued by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Arizona. That order transferred Mr. Siegel to disability inactive status, effective January 23, 2025, in:
In the Matter of a Suspended Member of the State Bar of Arizona Byron E. Siegel
Case No. PDJ 2024-9105-D
Following the filing of reciprocal discipline in Michigan, the Attorney Discipline Board issued an order directing the parties to advise whether there were objections under MCR 9.120(C)(1) and whether a hearing was requested.
Mr. Siegel objected to the transfer and requested a hearing. The matter was assigned to Tri-County Hearing Panel #3 pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(3). The Grievance Administrator filed a response, and the panel requested and reviewed additional briefing from both parties.
After review, the panel determined that a hearing was not necessary and that Mr. Siegel failed to meet his burden of showing that a transfer to disability inactive status in Michigan would be clearly inappropriate.
Order of the Panel
On December 23, 2025, the hearing panel issued an order transferring Mr. Siegel to disability inactive status pursuant to MCR 9.120(C) and MCR 9.121(A).
The transfer is effective immediately and will remain in effect until reinstatement, if any, under MCR 9.121(E).
No costs were assessed.
Why This Matters
Disability inactive status is not a disciplinary sanction, but it does remove an attorney from the practice of lawwhen they are determined to be unable to practice due to disability. This case highlights how Michigan’s attorney regulation system applies reciprocal action even where a respondent objects, and places the burden on the attorney to show why identical treatment would be inappropriate.
The decision also reflects the Board’s authority to resolve such matters without an evidentiary hearing when the record and briefing are sufficient.
