Case Information
- Attorney: John F. Calvin (P 74477)
- Case No.: 25-038-GA
- County: Oakland
- City: West Bloomfield, Michigan
- Discipline: Disbarment; Restitution; Conditions
- Effective Date: January 7, 2026
Quick Facts
Who is the attorney?
John F. Calvin, P 74477, West Bloomfield, Michigan.
What discipline was imposed?
Disbarment, restitution, and conditions.
Why was discipline imposed?
Multiple findings of client neglect, failure to communicate, failure to protect client interests, excessive fees, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities.
Did the attorney participate in the disciplinary process?
No. Discipline was imposed following default.
Were restitution and costs ordered?
Yes. Restitution of $8,321.00 and costs of $1,825.96 were assessed.
Discipline Summary
The Attorney Discipline Board ordered the disbarment of John F. Calvin following findings that he neglected multiple client matters and failed to comply with fundamental professional obligations.
The order also requires Calvin to pay restitution totaling $8,321.00, comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct, and pay assessed costs.
Applicable Court Rules
This matter proceeded under Michigan Court Rules and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorney competence, diligence, communication, fees, and disciplinary cooperation, including:
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
- MRPC 1.1(c) – Neglect of a legal matter
- MRPC 1.3 – Lack of diligence and promptness
- MRPC 1.4(a) – Failure to communicate with clients
- MRPC 1.5(a) – Charging or collecting a clearly excessive fee
- MRPC 1.16(d) – Failure to protect client interests upon termination
- MRPC 3.2 – Failure to expedite litigation
- MRPC 8.1(a)(2) – Failure to respond to lawful disciplinary requests
- MRPC 8.4(a), (b), (c) – Professional misconduct
Michigan Court Rules
- MCR 9.104(1)–(4), (7), (10)(a) – Grounds for discipline
- MCR 9.113(A), (B)(2) – Duty to answer requests for investigation
As with all discipline matters, this action falls under Michigan Court Rules, Chapter 9, including the Attorney Discipline Board’s authority under MCR 9.115.
Underlying Conduct
The Grievance Administrator filed a six-count formal complaint against Calvin. Based on his default, the hearing panel found that Calvin:
- Neglected five separate client matters
- Failed to communicate with clients regarding matters for which he was retained
- Failed to take reasonable steps to protect client interests upon termination of representation, including failing to refund unearned fees
- Failed to file answers to multiple requests for investigation
Hearing Panel Findings
Based on default and evidence presented, the panel found that Calvin committed professional misconduct across all six counts, including:
- Neglecting entrusted legal matters (Counts One through Four)
- Failing to act with diligence and promptness (Counts One through Four)
- Failing to keep clients reasonably informed (Counts One through Five)
- Charging or collecting a clearly excessive fee (Count Two)
- Failing to protect client interests upon termination (Counts One through Five)
- Failing to expedite litigation (Count One)
- Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation (Counts One and Two)
- Failing to respond to disciplinary authorities and requests for investigation (Count Six)
- Attempting to obtain an agreement that misconduct would not be reported (Count Two)
The panel also found violations of MCR 9.104(1)–(4) and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c) across multiple counts.
Sanction
The panel ordered that John F. Calvin be disbarred, effective January 7, 2026.
In addition, the panel ordered that Calvin:
- Pay restitution totaling $8,321.00
- Comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct
- Pay costs in the amount of $1,825.96
Calvin’s Michigan law license had already been continuously suspended since January 29, 2025, pursuant to an interim suspension issued in Grievance Administrator v John F. Calvin, Case No. 24-64-GA.
Why This Matters
Disbarment is reserved for the most serious violations of professional responsibility. This case reflects the cumulative impact of repeated client neglect, financial harm, and refusal to engage with the disciplinary process.
Client protection depends not only on ethical conduct during representation, but also on accountability when things go wrong. When attorneys fail to communicate, abandon matters, and disregard disciplinary oversight, the system escalates accordingly.
