Kimberly J. Hamman Reprimanded, Brighton, Michigan, April 24

STATE OF MICHIGAN MEMBERS WENDY A. NEELEY EXECUTIVE DIRECTORALAN GERSHELATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD -- CHAIRPERSON JOHN K. BURGESSPETER A. SMIT DEPUTY DIRECTOR -- VICE-CHAIRPERSON KAREN M. DALEYREV. DR. LOUIS J. PRUES ASSOCIATE COUNSEL -- SECRETARY SHERRY MIFSUDLINDA M. ORLANS OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR --JASON M. TURKISH OWEN R. MONTGOMERYANDREAS SIDIROPOULOS, MD CASE MANAGER --KATIE STANLEY JODIE GROHTISH VINCENT CASE MANAGER --KAMILIA K. LANDRUM JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY --333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147 www.adbmich.org PHONE: 313-963-5553 NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent) Case No. 26-23-GA Notice Issued: April 24, 2026 Kimberly J. Hamman, P 49768, Brighton, Michigan Reprimand, Effective April 24, 2026 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Livingston County Hearing Panel #1. Based on the parties' stipulation, and respondent's no contest pleas to the factual allegations and the allegations of professional misconduct, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct by engaging in the preparation of property and estate documents granting herself and her husband an interest in certain real estate owned by an unrepresented party, without taking reasonable efforts to advise the unrepresented party of her role in the transaction. The formal complaint further alleged that, during litigation that resulted from the real estate transaction, respondent requested that a judge withdraw a request for investigation that the judge had filed against respondent. Specifically the panel found that respondent failed to adequately inform a self-represented person who reasonably should have been known to misunderstand her role in the matter, in violation of MRPC 4.3(a); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that is a violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); and, attempted to obtain an agreement that a party withdraw a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(10)(b). In accordance with the amended stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $762.14.