Michigan Attorney Jalal J. Dallo Suspended 45 Days for Conduct Interfering With Justice

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. As part of the consent agreement, allegations in paragraphs 63(a) and 63(c) of the first amended formal complaint were dismissed with prejudice.

Underlying Conduct

During representation of a client in a criminal matter, Dallo 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, Dallo withdrew from the representation and was removed from the Oakland County Indigent Defense Services Office list of approved attorneys.

Rule Violations Found

Based on the respondent’s admissions and no-contest pleas, the panel found violations of MRPC 3.4(c) for knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal; MRPC 8.4(a) for knowingly assisting or inducing another to violate tribunal rules; MRPC 8.4(b) for conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or criminal law violations reflecting adversely on fitness to practice; MCR 9.104(1) for conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice; MCR 9.104(2) for conduct exposing the profession or courts to obloquy or reproach; MCR 9.104(3) for conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals; and MCR 9.104(4) for violation of professional conduct standards adopted by the Supreme Court.

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 conduct here wasn’t a gray area call. It was an attorney accepting documents designed to reach a victim in an active criminal case.

The removal from the indigent defense roster matters too. Public defense systems depend on trust, and that trust runs in every direction — to clients, to courts, and to the public interest the system is supposed to serve. When that trust breaks, the consequences extend beyond one lawyer and one case.

This is discipline doing exactly what it is supposed to do.