Michigan Attorney Discipline Roundup – March 2026

Michigan Attorney Discipline Roundup

March 2026  |  Notices Issued March 19 and March 23, 2026

Disciplinary notices issued in March 2026 present a more serious range of conduct than recent months. Two cases involve criminal or quasi-criminal conduct, one concerns a prosecutor’s boundary violations with a vulnerable program participant, and the fourth raises a procedural absence question that remains pending before a hearing panel.

All contested matters were resolved through consent discipline or automatic operation of court rules, with no contested hearings reflected in the March notices.

Case Information

Case Detail: Michael E. Siwek — Byron Center

On February 24, 2026, Michael E. Siwek entered a guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan to two federal felony counts: sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a), and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(A)(5)(B).

Under MCR 9.120(B)(1), a Michigan attorney’s license is automatically suspended upon criminal conviction. No separate disciplinary proceeding or hearing panel finding is required to impose the initial suspension. Siwek’s license was suspended effective the date of his conviction, February 24, 2026.

Costs Assessed: Not yet entered (pending judgment of conviction and hearing panel assignment)

Case Detail: Ryan S. Bourjaily — Bloomfield Hills

Ryan S. Bourjaily, a Bloomfield Hills attorney, was disbarred by consent after admitting that between September 25 and October 17, 2024, he commingled more than $100,000 for his personal use, including personal gambling transactions, while serving as a conservator in an Oakland County Probate Court matter. The hearing panel found that Bourjaily misappropriated those funds.

By November 7, 2024, Bourjaily had repaid the full amount misappropriated back to the estate. The full repayment was reflected in the stipulation but did not alter the consent to disbarment. Tri-County Hearing Panel #58 accepted the stipulation and ordered disbarment effective March 15, 2026.

Costs Assessed: $1,129.00

Case Detail: Kourtney L. Stone — Grand Rapids

Kourtney L. Stone was an assistant prosecuting attorney assigned to the Kent County Treatment and Support Court (TASC), a diversion program for defendants with mental health or substance abuse issues. The formal complaint alleged that Stone developed and maintained an improper personal relationship with a TASC participant she was professionally involved with, communicating extensively with him outside official channels, offering gifts and financial assistance, and making statements that implied influence over prosecutorial decisions, all without the knowledge of his attorney.

The complaint further alleged that Stone disclosed confidential information about other TASC participants and used her professional credentials to access the participant’s recorded jail phone calls. The conduct led to an internal investigation, the suspension of her access, and her termination from the Kent County Prosecutor’s Office. Stone admitted to the factual allegations in full through the consent stipulation, which was accepted by Kent County Hearing Panel #4.

Costs Assessed: $1,143.92

Case Detail: Robert A. Pasionek — Mesa, Arizona

On March 12, 2026, Ingham County Hearing Panel #3 entered an order suspending the Michigan law license of Robert A. Pasionek on an interim basis, effective immediately, pursuant to MCR 9.115(H)(2). Pasionek, whose address of record is Mesa, Arizona, failed to personally appear at a hearing scheduled for that date, claiming physical incapacity as the reason.

Under MCR 9.115(H)(2), when a respondent claims physical or mental incapacity as a reason for failing to appear before a hearing panel, the panel may, on its own initiative, immediately suspend the respondent from the practice of law until further order of the panel or board. The suspension does not represent a final finding of misconduct on the underlying case. The underlying formal complaint, Case No. 25-2-GA, remains pending. The interim suspension will remain in effect until the panel or the ADB enters a further order.

Note: No costs assessed in the March 23, 2026 notice. The underlying formal complaint (25-2-GA) remains pending before Ingham County Hearing Panel #3. This notice reflects procedural status only, not a final misconduct finding.

Discipline Summary

March 2026’s notices represent a harder tier of conduct than the trust-account and communication failures that dominated the February roundup. Two of the four cases involve either criminal conduct or quasi-criminal misappropriation. The Stone matter adds a distinct dimension, implicating prosecutorial power over a vulnerable population in a court-supervised diversion setting.

The Bourjaily disbarment is notable for its speed and clarity: the attorney admitted the full factual record, repaid the misappropriated funds before proceedings concluded, and still consented to disbarment. Full restitution does not offset the severity of conservator misconduct under Michigan discipline standards.

The Siwek automatic suspension illustrates how MCR 9.120(B)(1) functions. No hearing panel finding is required to trigger the suspension. The license goes dark at conviction. The panel assigned after judgment of conviction will determine what, if any, further discipline follows after the federal sentencing process concludes.

Pasionek’s interim suspension under MCR 9.115(H)(2) is procedurally distinct from the others. It is not a merits finding. The underlying case, filed as 25-2-GA in 2025, has not been resolved, and the nature of the alleged misconduct in the formal complaint is not described in the March notice. The interim suspension preserves the panel’s ability to proceed if and when Pasionek’s incapacity claim can be evaluated or resolved.