Attorney Discipline – Suspension (By Consent)
Respondent: Jalal J. Dallo
P Number: 72879
County: Oakland
City: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
Case No.: 25-053-GA
Document Type: Notice of Suspension (By Consent)
Issued: February 4, 2026
Effective: February 4, 2026
Discipline Summary
The Attorney Grievance Commission approved, and Tri-County Hearing Panel #4 accepted, an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline. The stipulation included admissions to multiple allegations of misconduct and no-contest pleas to additional factual allegations set forth in the first amended formal complaint.
Underlying Conduct
During representation of a client in a criminal matter, the respondent accepted an envelope of documents from the client intended for delivery to a third person. Some of those documents contained requests and demands that the third person contact the victim in the case in an effort to influence or change her testimony.
Following this conduct, the respondent withdrew from the representation and was removed from the Oakland County Indigent Defense Services Office list of approved attorneys.
As part of the consent agreement, allegations in paragraphs 63(a) and 63(c) of the first amended formal complaint were dismissed with prejudice.
Rule Violations Found
Based on the respondent’s admissions and no-contest pleas, the panel found violations of the following Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MRPC 3.4(c) – knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal
- MRPC 8.4(a) – knowingly assisting or inducing another to violate tribunal rules
- MRPC 8.4(b) – conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or criminal law violations reflecting adversely on fitness to practice
- MCR 9.104(1) – conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice
- MCR 9.104(2) – conduct exposing the profession or courts to obloquy or reproach
- MCR 9.104(3) – conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals
- MCR 9.104(4) – violation of professional conduct standards adopted by the Supreme Court
Sanction
- Suspension: 45 days
- Effective: February 4, 2026
- Costs assessed: $773.20
Why This Matters
This case sits squarely in the red zone of attorney ethics. Any conduct that touches a victim, even indirectly, through requests meant to shape testimony strikes at the integrity of the justice system itself. It is why the rules draw hard lines around interference, inducement, and tribunal obligations.
The removal from the indigent defense roster matters too. Public defense systems depend on trust. When that trust breaks, the consequences extend beyond one lawyer and one case.
This is discipline doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
