UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF: Administrative Order

ATTORNEY CRAIG S. ROMANZI No. 18-AD-078

/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING

PETITION FOR ADMISSION

This matter is before the Court on a Petition for Admission pursuant to LCivR 83.1

(the “Petition”) filed by Attorney Craig S. Romanzi. After review of the Petition and receipt

of supplemental information from Mr. Romanzi, Chief District Judge Robert J. Jonker

referred the matter to the undersigned panel of judicial officers for hearing and decision.

(Admin. Order No. 18-AD-038). On August 1, 2018, the panel conducted a hearing on the

record in Kalamazoo, Michigan, at which Mr. Romanzi appeared and testified under oath.

For the following reasons, the Court has decided to deny the Petition.

Background

Mr. Romanzi focuses his practice on personal injury law and no-fault insurance

claims, among other things. He has been associated with numerous law firms in the greater-

Detroit metropolitan area in recent years, including Romanzi & Nardicchio, P.L.C., Fieger &

Fieger, P.C., Romanzi Atnip, P.C., and his current firm, Craig S. Romanzi, PC.

On March 8, 2018, Mr. Romanzi filed his Petition. According to the Petition, Mr.

Romanzi was admitted to practice in the State of Michigan on November 18, 1991 and in the

State of Ohio approximately one year later. (Pet. at 4 3).! The Petition states that Mr.

Romanzi is also admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Michigan and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Pet. at

4 4).

Mr. Romanzi did not provide the dates that he was admitted to practice before the

Eastern District of Michigan or the Sixth Circuit in his Petition, however. (Pet. at 4] 3-4).

Nor did he state whether he remains active and in good standing with the State Bar of

Michigan, the Eastern District of Michigan, or the Sixth Circuit. Jd. In an attachment to the

Petition, Mr. Romanzi disclosed that his license to practice law in Ohio was suspended at

some point in time because he failed to comply with continuing legal education requirements.

Upon review of the Petition, Chief Judge Jonker sent a letter to Mr. Romanzi at his

Dearborn, Michigan address.? Chief Judge Jonker requested additional information from

Mr. Romanzi by no later than April 18, 2018 regarding (i) a domestic relations matter

disclosed in the Petition, (ii) the suspension of his Ohio license and the conditions for its

reinstatement, and (iii) any action of the State Bar of Michigan with respect to the foregoing.

In a response dated April 21, 2018, Mr. Romanzi further explained the status of his

domestic relations matter and enclosed numerous documents related thereto. Mr. Romanzi

also provided a supplemental statement regarding the suspension of his Ohio license.

According to Mr. Romanzi, he was not informed of the suspension until he contacted the Ohio

State Bar Association in 2016.

1 The Petition states that Mr. Romanzi was admitted to practice in Ohio in October 1992.

According to the attorney directory maintained by the Supreme Court of Ohio, Mr. Romanzi was

admitted on December 14, 1992.

2 The Petition lists a mailing address of 3 Park Lane Blvd., Suite 1600W, Dearborn, Michigan

48126, the same address Mr. Romanzi maintains with the State Bar of Michigan.

-2-

On April 24, 2018, Chief Judge Jonker advised Mr. Romanzi that he remained

concerned with, among other things, Mr. Romanzi’s compliance with his continuing duty to

report to the State Bar of Michigan the domestic relations matter and the suspension of his

Ohio license. Chief Judge Jonker also requested information regarding Mr. Romanzi’s

pending bankruptcy case, including allegations of fraud, embezzlement and defalcation made

therein. See In re Romanzi, Case No. 16-43857 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.). In accordance with

LCivR 83.1(c), Chief Judge Jonker entered an order on April 24, 2018 appointing the

undersigned three-judge panel to further review the Petition and determine whether Mr.

Romanzi should be admitted to practice before this Court. (Admin. Order 18-AD-038).

By letter dated May 11, 2018, the Court notified Mr. Romanzi that a hearing

regarding his Petition would be held on June 8, 2018 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The letter

was sent to the attention of Mr. Romanzi at his Dearborn, Michigan address, the same

address that Mr. Romanzi used on his Petition and his letter to Chief Judge Jonker dated

April 21, 2018.

As scheduled, the Court held a hearing regarding the Petition in Grand Rapids,

Michigan on June 8, 2018. Mr. Romanzi did not appear at the hearing or attempt to

reschedule it. The Court therefore entered an order denying the Petition on June 15, 2018.

(Admin. Order No. 18-AD-055).

In late June 2018, Mr. Romanzi contacted the case manager for Judge Janet T. Neff

via email to request a re-hearing.? Judge Neff's case manager invited Mr. Romanzi to make

a formal request for a re-hearing to the Court. On July 9, 2018, Mr. Romanzi sent a letter to

3 In his email, Mr. Romanzi’s signature block included a mailing address of 31000 Northwestern

Hwy., Suite 220, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334.

-3-

the Court via facsimile.4 In his letter, Mr. Romanzi advised the Court that he never received

notice of the hearing on his Petition. As such, he was unable to appear at the Court’s

“Gnquisition.” Mr. Romanzi requested that the Court reschedule his Petition for hearing.

On Sunday, July 22, 2018, Mr. Romanzi faxed another letter to the Court in which he

reiterated his request for a re-hearing.> Mr. Romanzi suggested that because no response to

his letter dated July 9, 2018 had been forthcoming, the Court “must have thought that I was

a liar.” For the first time, Mr. Romanzi explained that he was not receiving mail at his

Dearborn, Michigan address. As support, Mr. Romanzi attached envelopes enclosing prior

correspondence from the Court that had been sent to the address used by Mr. Romanzi on

his Petition and letterhead. The envelopes reveal that Mr. Romanzi arranged to have his

mail forwarded to a post office box in Rochester, Michigan. To dispel his own suggestion

that he might be a “liar,” Mr. Romanzi offered to “submit to a polygraph by the examiner

used by the Michigan State Police — at the expense of the federal government, of course.”

One day later, Mr. Romanzi faxed yet another letter to the panel. For all intents and

purposes, the letter appears to be identical to the letter dated July 22, 2018, including the

mailing address on the letterhead.’

Thereafter, the Court sent a letter to Mr. Romanzi notifying him that a re-hearing on

his Petition would be held on August 1, 2018 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. At the hearing, Mr.

4 Mr. Romanzi’s letterhead no longer included the Dearborn, Michigan address. Instead, it

included a new mailing address of 511 Olde Towne Rd., P.O. Box 40430, Rochester, Michigan 48307.

5 Mr. Romanzi’s letterhead was not the same as the address he used in correspondence dated

duly 9, 2018, as he had removed the street address of “511 Olde Towne Rd.”

6 It is unclear when Mr. Romanzi requested that his mail be forwarded to the Rochester,

Michigan address. It is clear, however, that Mr. Romanzi did not formally inform the Court before

July 22, 2018 that he had a new mailing address.

7 The fax coversheet states that the letter is from Craig Romanzi, with an address of 4227

Arcadia Dr., Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326.

-4-

Romanzi appeared on his own behalf. He did not present witnesses or any other evidence

beyond that which he had previously submitted to the Court.

Analysis

A federal district court has the inherent authority to determine whether to grant or

deny an attorney’s application for admission to practice before that court. Stilley v. Bell, 155

Fed. Appx. 217, 219 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Application of Mosher, 25 F.3d 397, 399-400 (6th

Cir. 1994)); In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 643 n.6 (1985). “Accordingly, the exercise of the

authority to admit, deny or suspend an attorney is left to the discretion of the district court.”

Id. (citations omitted).

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has observed that there are two competing

interests in a decision to admit an attorney to practice before a district court:

On the one hand are the attorney’s interest in practicing in his or her

chosen profession, and the client’s interest in being represented by the

client's chosen attorney... These interests are more compelling

when...the client has already chosen a particular attorney to

represent him or her in court. .. On the other hand, the public interest

requires the court to consider whether the applicant attorney will

promote the administration of justice, and whether the applicant

possesses the professional and ethical competence expected of an officer

of the court.

Stilley, 155 Fed. Appx. at 220 (citations and quotations omitted).

This Court has promulgated local rules to govern the practice of attorneys in the

Western District of Michigan. LCivR 83.1; see 28 U.S.C. § 2071; Fed. R. Civ. P. 83; see also

Rittenhouse v. Delia Home Improvement, Inc. (In re Desilets), 291 F.3d 925, 929 (6th Cir.

2002) (citations omitted). Rule 83.1 of the Local Civil Rules sets forth the procedure for

admission by requiring an attorney to disclose certain information, including the attorney’s

office address, each jurisdiction to which the applicant has been admitted to practice, and the

corresponding date(s) of admission. LCivR 83.1(d). An attorney seeking admission to

practice before this Court must also disclose “whether the applicant has ever been held in

-5-

contempt, subjected to discipline as defined by these rules or convicted of a crime” and all

facts relevant thereto. LCivR 83.1(d)(i).8

After carefully considering the Petition, the supplemental information provided in

response to the Court’s requests, and the representations made under oath by Mr. Romanzi

at the hearing on August 1, 2018, the Court is not persuaded that Mr. Romanzi should be

admitted to practice in the Western District of Michigan at this time. Mr. Romanzi has not

satisfied his duty of candor to the Court. Moreover, given Mr. Romanzi’s past practices, the

Court is concerned that Mr. Romanzi is indifferent, if not recalcitrant, with respect to his

continuing disclosure obligations. Finally, Mr. Romanzi has not exhibited the civility,

courtesy and professionalism required in this District.

A, Candor to the Tribunal - Mich. R. Prof. Cond. 3.3

As an attorney requesting admission to practice in this District, Mr. Romanzi owes a

duty of candor to the Court. See Mich. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3. The Court finds that the level

of candor exhibited by Mr. Romanzi, as a prospective officer of the Court, is deficient.

Mr. Romanzi’s explanation of the contempt finding against him by the Sixth Judicial

Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, Michigan (the “State Court”) is not satisfactory. In

response to whether he has ever been held in contempt or otherwise subject to discipline, Mr.

Romanzi answered “no” in his Petition. During the hearing and only after the panel probed

further did Mr. Romanzi acknowledge that he had previously been held in contempt.

Moreover, Mr. Romanzi’s explanation of the events giving rise to the contempt finding

is inaccurate, if not misleading. Mr. Romanzi testified to the Court as follows:

ATTORNEY ROMANZI: Certainly. It was in regards to the

bankruptcy. I was involuntarily placed into bankruptcy due to

various debts. The [creditors’] attorney wanted to take my

deposition, which I sat for. The first four hours I sat for. He

8 The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan imposes a similar

requirement, which is also continuing in nature. LCivR 83.20, 83.22 (E.D. Mich.).

28.

wanted another four hours, which was fine. I mis-scheduled it

in my - - he got an order for the other four hours, I mis-scheduled

it in my calendar, I missed that date. He brought a motion. I

went before Judge - -

JUDGE MALONEY: One of the Oakland judges.

ATTORNEY ROMANZI: One of the Oakland County judges,

whose name escapes me. And I appeared. Well, it wasn’t even

properly noticed before the Court, but I appeared and she said,

“There was an order.” And I said, “Yes.” “Did you appear?” I

said, “No, I made a mistake. I have no objection to appearing.”

And she held me in contempt.

JUDGE MALONEY: What sanction was imposed?

ATTORNEY ROMANZI: She gave me five days in jail.

(Hr'g Tr. at p. 4, Aug. 1, 2018).

The public record from the State Court reveals a much different series of events

leading to the contempt finding. Ruben et al. v. Romanzi et al., Case No. 15-144923-NM

(Oakland Cty. 6th Cir. Ct.). After a judgment for legal malpractice in the amount of $860,000

was entered against Mr. Romanzi, the judgment creditors issued a subpoena to him as part

of their collection efforts. (Second Contempt Mot. Dec. 9, 2015 at J 2,4). According to the

subpoena, Mr. Romanzi was required to appear for examination on October 26, 2015 and

produce certain documents one week in advance. (Id. at Ex. 2). When Mr. Romanzi did not

appear or produce documents, the judgment creditors filed a motion for contempt on October

80, 2015. (First Contempt Mot. Oct. 30, 2015).

In his response to the motion dated November 16, 2015, Mr. Romanzi attached an

email chain between himself and the attorney for the judgment creditors. (Resp. Nov. 16,

2015 at Ex. A). According to Mr. Romanzi’s own emails, he did not advise the attorney for

the judgment creditors of any conflict with the date and time of the examination until the

morning on which it was scheduled. (Jd.) Mr. Romanzi explained that he could not appear

because he had a deposition in an unrelated matter he had apparently learned about one

-7-

week earlier and for which he only received formal notice one day earlier (Sunday). (Id.)

Fifteen minutes before the time scheduled for the examination, Mr. Romanzi contacted the

attorney for the judgment creditors and advised him that the deposition in the unrelated

matter “did not go forward.” (Id.) Mr. Romanzi represented to opposing counsel that he

would appear for the examination shortly. (Jd.) However, Mr. Romanzi apparently never

appeared. (First Contempt Mot. at § 7).

The State Court held a hearirig on the contempt motion on or around November 18,

2015. (Order Nov. 18, 2015). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court imposed monetary

sanctions and ordered Mr. Romanzi to appear for the judgment creditors’ examination and

produce documents. (Jd.)

Mr. Romanzi again failed to abide by the State Court’s order, leaving the judgment

creditors little choice but to file another motion for contempt on December 9, 2015. (Second

Contempt Mot. at {J 6-7). The judgment creditors requested that the State Court hold Mr.

Romanzi in contempt and issue a bench warrant, among other things. (/d.) At a hearing on

January 13, 2016, the State Court found Mr. Romanzi in contempt. (Order Jan. 13, 2016).

Only then did the court order the imprisonment of Mr. Romanzi. (Id.)

Mr. Romanzi’s explanation to this Court regarding the contempt finding suffers from

inconsistencies and incompleteness. The State Court did not throw Mr. Romanzi in jail for

rote and immaterial deficiencies, as he implied to this Court. Mr. Romanzi was given two

opportunities to appear for the examination and produce documents. The State Court

seemingly issued a bench warrant for his arrest only as a last resort. Mr. Romanzi’s account

of the events leading to his contempt finding is inaccurate and contrary to his response filed

in the State Court.

3 Mr. Romanzi did not produce documents responsive to the subpoena at any time prior to the

examination. (See Order Nov. 18, 2015).

-8-

In addition, Mr. Romanzi did not “mis-schedule” the examination, as he represented

to this Court. Rather, his own emails reveal that he contacted opposing counsel on the

morning of the examination and declared he could not attend because of a deposition that

never occurred in an unrelated matter. Shortly before the time scheduled for the

examination, Mr. Romanzi said he would appear. He apparently never did. Mr. Romanzi’s

representation to this Court that he “mis-scheduled” the date of the examination is therefore

contrary to the emails he filed on the docket in the State Court.

While the finding of contempt by the State Court is of great concern to this Court, it

does not per se disqualify him from admission. Mr. Romanzi’s evasiveness and lack of candor

to this Court do. He was not initially forthcoming in his Petition, and he did not provide the

Court with a complete account of the contempt finding. It is difficult to imagine how Mr.

Romanzi could not recall the contempt finding and the events giving rise to it, especially

because he was imprisoned as a result of it.

B. Continuing Duty to Disclose - Mich. R. Prof. Cond. 8.1

The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct require attorneys to disclose any

disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment in another jurisdiction. Mich. R.

Prof. Cond. 8.1. Accordingly, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of Michigan, as

well as before this Court, is entrusted with an obligation to self-police. Id.; see LCivR 83.16).

In his response to a letter from Chief Judge Jonker, Mr. Romanzi could not recall

whether he informed the State Bar of Michigan that his license to practice law in Ohio had

been suspended. Even after Chief Judge Jonker’s inquiry, Mr. Romanzi has yet to inform

this Court whether he made the requisite disclosure to the State Bar of Michigan that his

Ohio license has been suspended.!° As technical as Mr. Romanzi may perceive this violation,

he nonetheless has a duty to report it.

Mr. Romanzi’s continuing uncertainty regarding his disclosure to the State Bar of

Michigan calls into question whether he would inform this Court in the event that he is

subject to future disciplinary action. Mr. Romanzi should not be admitted to practice before

this Court until he has demonstrated compliance with the self-reporting requirements

imposed upon him by the other jurisdictions in which he is admitted to practice.

As a collateral issue, Mr. Romanzi’s ever-changing mailing address is also

problematic. Since the filing of his Petition, Mr. Romanzi has used no less than four mailing

addresses when interacting with this Court. Although Mr. Romanzi represented to the Court

that he was having difficulty receiving mail at his Dearborn, Michigan address, Mr. Romanzi

has not changed the address he maintains on file with the State Bar of Michigan and the

Eastern District of Michigan. To date, it remains the Dearborn, Michigan address.'!

As it stands today, this Court, as well as the practitioners and parties before it, would

have difficulty communicating with, and serving documents upon, Mr. Romanzi in the event

he is admitted. The Court concludes that Mr. Romanzi should not be admitted until he

establishes a consistent mailing address, as basic as that may seem.

C. Professional Conduct - Mich. R. Prof. Cond. 6.5

Finally, Mr. Romanzi has a duty to conduct himself with civility and professionalism.

Mich. R. Prof. Cond. 6.5; see Mich. R. Prof. Cond. 3.5(d); see also STANDARDS FOR CIVILITY IN

10 The Court is uncertain whether Mr. Romanzi has complied with his reporting obligation as a

member of the bar in the Eastern District of Michigan. LCivR 83.20, 83.22 (E.D. Mich.).

u Ironically, in his response to the motion for contempt filed by the judgment creditors, Mr.

Romanzi, acting pro per, stated that “[a]ll information regarding contact and addresses is timely

updated with the State Bar of Michigan. No one else has ever had difficulty finding Romanzi.” (Resp.

at J 2).

-10-

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (W.D. Mich.), available at http://www.miwd.uscourts.gov/localpolicies-and-procedures (follow link for “Civility Plan”).!2 Mr. Romanzi’s written

communications to the panel on July 9, 22-23, 2018 fail in this regard. While Mr. Romanzi’s

lack of professionalism and courtesy is not alone determinative, it further counsels against

granting him admission.

Conclusion

After considering the Petition and other information related thereto, the panel

unanimously concludes that Mr. Romanzi is not of satisfactory character to practice in the

Western District of Michigan at this time. With that said, Mr. Romanzi should be given an

opportunity to renew his request at a later date, but only after addressing the issues

identified herein.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition of Craig S. Romanzi, Esq. for admission

to the Western District of Michigan is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Craig S. Romanzi, Esq. may renew his Petition for

Admission on September 14, 2019.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this Opinion

and Order upon Craig S. Romanzi, Esq. via first class United States mail at the following

addresses:

Craig S. Romanzi, Esq. Craig S. Romanzi, Esq.

Craig S. Romanzi, PC Craig S. Romanzi, PC

3 Park Lane Blvd., Suite 1600W P.O. Box 40430

Dearborn, MI 48126 Rochester, MI 48307

Craig S. Romanzi, Esq.

Craig S. Romanzi, PC

31000 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 220

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

2 The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has a similar code of

civility. CIVILITY PRINCIPLES (E.D. Mich.), available at https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?

pagefunction=rulesPlansOrders (follow link for “Civility Principles”).

-11-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court or his designee shall sign and

file this Opinion and Order.

[ pasar

Date: September Zo. 2018 fall. Hahn FTA

PAUL L. MALONEY

United States District Judge

wo[ pase

Date: September 2, 2018 Zlbu 5. Biers Na

ELLEN S. CARMOBY’

United States Magistrate Judge

—

Date: September 2° , 2018 AS ts yy

JOHNT.GREGG Vd

United States Bankruptcy Judge