In re Disciplinary Proceeding Involving Attorney R

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
EN BANC OPINION AND ORDER
PRESENT: 	HONORABLE SCOTT W. DALES
HONORABLE JAMES W. BOYD
HONORABLE JOHN T. GREGG
United States Bankruptcy Judges
SCOTT W. DALES, CHIEF JUDGE.
Pursuant to the En Banc Order dated April 16, 2026 (ECF No. 1, the “En Banc Order”),
the court conducted a hearing on May 13, 2026, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, at which attorney
Ryan B. Moran, Esq., and the U.S. Trustee’s Trial Attorney, Kenneth G. Lau, Esq., appeared and
made arguments.
The court took the extraordinary step of issuing the En Banc Order following numerous
orders by each of the court’s three judges over approximately sixteen months (roughly since
January 2025) designed to address the court’s growing dissatisfaction with Mr. Moran’s
representation of his consumer-debtor clients, and adherence to the court’s rules and orders in
multiple cases. Many of the court’s prior orders imposed modest (and case specific) discipline.1
Nevertheless, missteps that initially appeared to be isolated events in the universe of Mr. Moran’s
1 The court compiled a list of cases in which its judges have sanctioned or discussed Mr. Moran’s unprofessional
conduct, attached as Appendix A to the En Banc Order. See En Banc Order at p. 4.
In re:
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDING.
_____________________________________/
Misc. No. 26-72001
Hon. Scott W. Dales
Hon. James W. Boyd
Hon. John T. Gregg
Case:26-72001-swd Doc #:4 Filed: 05/21/26 Page 1 of 10

cases eventually congealed to reveal a constellation of unprofessional conduct mostly, though not
exclusively, in his chapter 13 caseload.2
During the hearing Mr. Moran sought to minimize, though not deny, the litany of issues
prompting the unusual en banc proceeding. 	He acknowledged the missed response deadlines,
unexcused hearing no-shows, careless reading of court orders, and multiple fee disgorgements that
have characterized his practice in the Western District since the beginning of 2025.
A recent example from In re Kalambayi, Case No. 25-03130-jtg, epitomizes the court’s
concerns. The Hon. John T. Gregg issued an order to show cause requiring an explanation from
Mr. Moran for his failure to appear at a plan confirmation hearing on December 16, 2025, without
first obtaining an adjournment or otherwise communicating with the chapter 13 trustee regarding
the hearing. Mr. Moran also failed to file his retainer agreement in violation of the local rules. See
In re Kalambayi, Case No. 25-03130-jtg, Order dated December 17, 2025 (ECF No. 14); see also
LBR 2016-1(d) (“… no more than 21 days after filing of a Chapter 12 or 13 petition a professional
person seeking compensation as an administrative expense must file a copy of the executed fee
agreement and serve the trustee and the United States Trustee”).
To protect the interests of Mr. Moran’s client, the court adjourned the confirmation hearing
(though denial of confirmation of a plan that the debtor had not properly prosecuted would, of
course, have been permissible in the court’s discretion). Mr. Moran’s failure to properly prosecute
the case at confirmation and comply with the retainer agreement filing requirement also prompted
the United States Trustee (“UST”) to file a motion under 11 U.S.C. § 329 and Fed. R. Bankr. P.
2017 for disgorgement of Mr. Moran’s fee. The parties, with the court’s approval, negotiated a
2 Mr. Moran filed his first case in the Western District of Michigan’s Bankruptcy Court in 2015. See In re Gerard
William Dallaile, Case No. 15-02403-jtg, and since then has filed approximately 330 cases, nearly 100 of which
remain pending. Chapter 7 cases account for roughly 80% of his caseload, with chapter 13 cases representing the rest.
Case:26-72001-swd Doc #:4 Filed: 05/21/26 Page 2 of 10

resolution of that motion. In re Kalambayi, Case No. 25-03130-jtg, Order dated January 16, 2026
(ECF No. 28). 	Nevertheless, the court eventually denied confirmation in the Kalambayi matter
and, after some post-denial docket activity, ultimately dismissed the case.3
Another recent and perhaps more extreme example comes from the twin-cases of
Mr. Moran’s client, Justin Kiebler. 	See In re Kiebler, Case No. 24-03033-jtg and Case No.
26-01450-jtg. 	In the first Kiebler case, Mr. Moran failed to respond to the chapter 13 trustee’s
post-confirmation dismissal motion, and the court dismissed Mr. Kiebler’s case without objection
on March 11, 2026. 	Twenty-one days later, Mr. Moran filed a motion under Fed. R. Bankr. P.
9024, arguing “excusable neglect.” Rather than explain the reasons for not opposing dismissal,
Mr. Moran simply argued, in effect, “no harm no foul” because he filed a plan amendment instead.
The court denied the motion to set aside the dismissal order.
Once again the UST sought disgorgement of Mr. Moran’s fee, and again the parties
negotiated a resolution, this time requiring disgorgement and expressly agreeing to an order
specifying that if Mr. Kiebler “elects to retain Counsel Moran to assist Debtor with the
commencement and maintenance of a future Chapter 13 bankruptcy to replace the instant
dismissed case, Counsel Moran shall not be entitled any ‘no look’ fee of any amount under
paragraph 16 of the Memorandum regarding Allowance of Compensation and Reimbursement of
Expenses for Professionals under 11 U.S.C. § 330(a) (as amended Effective January 1, 2024).”
See In re Kiebler, Case No. 24-03033-jtg, Agreed Consent Order to Resolve United States
Trustee’s Motion for Review and Return of Attorney Compensation Under 11 U.S.C. § 329 and
3 After the court denied confirmation of Mr. Kalambayi’s original plan, Mr. Moran filed an amended plan on
January 29, 2026. That same day, he withdrew the amended plan and filed a second amended plan in its place for
reasons that remain unclear. The chapter 13 trustee objected to the second amended plan. Thereafter, the parties
agreed to adjourn the confirmation hearing three times, with conditions, into July. Ultimately, the court dismissed
Mr. Kalambayi’s case on May 20, 2026, for failure to make preconfirmation plan payments and other significant
delays.
Case:26-72001-swd Doc #:4 Filed: 05/21/26 Page 3 of 10

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2017 (ECF No. 66, the “Agreed Order”). The very next day in Mr. Kiebler’s
newly filed case, however, Mr. Moran filed an Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement Chapter 13
(Case No. 26-01450-jtg, ECF No. 4), reflecting a “minimum flat fee” – i.e., a “no look” fee – of
$4,100 or $3,500, as referenced (inconsistently) in either the first or fifth paragraph in the retainer
agreement. One assumes that Mr. Moran read the Agreed Order, but he clearly failed to follow
it.4 	Remarkably, these events in the Kiebler matters occurred well-after the court raised these
exact concerns in the En Banc Order. Indeed, at a time when the court would expect a lawyer who
is the subject of such an order to exhibit meticulous fidelity to the rules, the court’s orders, and his
own commitments to his client and the UST, Mr. Moran inexplicably dropped the ball, again.
At the hearing, Mr. Moran tried (and failed) to mitigate these offenses by explaining that
he has no disciplinary problems in the Eastern District of Michigan and by pointing to his track
record with chapter 7 debtors which, he says, reveals no serious shortcomings over many years.
He noted, too, that his chapter 13 client history in the Western District has similarly shown long-
term success. This may be more or less true, but it offers little solace to his existing clients, like
Messrs. Kalambayi and Kiebler, who bear the brunt of his recent missteps. See Pioneer Inv. Servs.
v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 397 (1993) (client “voluntarily chose this attorney as his
representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of
this freely selected agent.”). Finally, to address the court’s issues in the Western District (and his
staff’s reluctance to service Western District cases), he stated that he has put unspecified
managerial systems in place and has hired and trained additional staff to handle his chapter 13
caseload.
4 At the hearing Mr. Lau charitably suggested that Mr. Moran appeared to be building his practice in the Western
District in a manner akin to building an airplane while flying it. To this apt analogy, the court would add only that
Mr. Moran also appears to be flying his unfinished airplane on autopilot.
Case:26-72001-swd Doc #:4 Filed: 05/21/26 Page 4 of 10

During the hearing the court inquired into the possible efficacy of voluntary continuing
legal education or practice management training for Mr. Moran and his paraprofessional staffers,
and perhaps, more personally, self-referral to the State Bar of Michigan’s Lawyers and Judges
Assistance Program (“LJAP”).5 Suffice it to say, Mr. Moran tepidly considered the former but
stubbornly opposed the latter. The court proposed the more ameliorative approach of CLE and the
LJAP as an alternative to serious disciplinary measures and expresses disappointment in
Mr. Moran’s response.
On the record, the court inquired whether Mr. Moran had self-reported this court’s prior
orders sanctioning him6 under Michigan’s reciprocal discipline rules. 	M.C.R. 9.120(A)(2) (“A
lawyer who has been the subject of an order of discipline … by any court of record … of the United
States … shall inform the grievance administrator and board of entry of such order … within 14
days of the entry of the order …”). Mr. Moran responded that he was unaware of the requirement
but would look into it. 	This response, naturally, does not inspire confidence in Mr. Moran’s
professionalism, and it undermines the self-policing philosophy upon which the legal profession
depends.
After considering Mr. Moran’s written and oral responses to the En Banc Order and the
court’s questions during the hearing, serious concerns persist about his substandard practice and
its impact on his clients in this District.
5 The LJAP reminds our profession that “[t]o be a good lawyer; one must be a healthy lawyer” and that “[i]mproving
and protecting attorneys’ well-being helps to maximize their professional competency.” See Lawyers and Judges
Assistance Program (https://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/ljap/home).
6 See In re Gailey, Case No. 23-02132-swd, Memorandum of Decision and Order dated November 12, 2025 (ECF No.
63) (Order requiring Mr. Moran to co-sign documents with local counsel for 45 days); In re Kalambayi, Case No. 25-
03130-jtg, Order dated January 14, 2026 (ECF No. 25) (Order reprimanding Mr. Moran); In re Smith, Case No. 24-
01117-jwb, Order dated March 26, 2025 (ECF No. 46) (Order regarding a previous Order to Show Cause requiring
Mr. Moran to attend and participate in a Federal Bar Association CLE program).
Case:26-72001-swd Doc #:4 Filed: 05/21/26 Page 5 of 10

During the hearing, comments from Mr. Moran regarding the economics of practicing in
our District, especially recently with several disgorgement orders under § 329,7 have prompted
him to consider discontinuing his practice here. 	From this colloquy, the court infers that he
responds more readily to financial incentives, or disincentives, and this inference (coupled with
his response to the court’s CLE and LJAP suggestions) informs the court’s ultimate remedy to
address the concerns underlying the En Banc Order, to which the court now turns.
First, the court will not suspend Mr. Moran’s electronic filing privileges – doing so would
jeopardize the interests of his many clients who depend on CM/ECF, as the UST argued during
the en banc hearing.
Second, the court has considered, and discarded, the option of suspending his authority to
file new chapter 13 cases. This measure may exceed, or at least approach the limits of, the court’s
authority under LBR 9010-1. It could also create a subtle and unwelcome incentive for Mr. Moran
to steer new clients toward chapter 7, regardless of its suitability in a particular case.
Third, the court recognizes that CLE in Michigan remains voluntary, and similarly, a
remedy involving the LJAP depends on the willingness of the attorney to participate in, and
commit to, the program.
Fourth, referral to the disciplinary machinery of the State Bar of Michigan or the United
States District Court at this time undervalues Mr. Moran’s previously demonstrated capacity to
serve his clients and, as a practical matter, could (depending on the ruling of the District Court)
interfere with his clients’ choice of counsel.
7 See In re Kiebler, Case No. 24-03033-jtg, Order dated April 30, 2026 (ECF No. 66); In re Soerries, Case No. 25-
00653-swd, Order dated June 30, 2025 (ECF No. 34); In re Kalambayi, Case No. 25-03130-jtg, Order dated
January 16, 2026 (ECF No. 28); and In re Fluke-Henry, Case No. 26-00027-jtg, Order dated April 30, 2026 (ECF No.
37).
Case:26-72001-swd Doc #:4 Filed: 05/21/26 Page 6 of 10

Fifth, although the court believes that requiring Mr. Moran to associate with local counsel
would bring the dual benefits of providing a much-needed mentor and familiarity with the local
rules and procedures to him and his practice, the court’s prior efforts of this nature have failed
because Mr. Moran has subverted the court’s purpose by reading its order narrowly, or because
the local bar hesitates to involve itself with Mr. Moran under the circumstances, the diseconomy
of dual representation, or some combination of these and other factors.
Having carefully considered its options and the record, the court has decided to (1)
reprimand or censure Mr. Moran for his ignorance or flouting of applicable rules and court orders,
missed deadlines, and occasional truancy in attending court; and (2) reduce, but not eliminate, the
“no look” fee the court typically awards through its chapter 13 plan confirmation orders. The court
adopts this approach because it believes Mr. Moran responds more vigorously to financial
incentives than opprobrium, and because it balances the court’s duty to ensure professional
conduct and the interests of Mr. Moran’s clients in continued representation using counsel of their
choice.
More specifically, for one-year after entry of this En Banc Opinion and Order, subject to
shortening in response to incentives provided below, any “no look” fee that the court awards to
Mr. Moran shall not exceed $2,050.00. Mr. Moran may seek compensation exceeding that amount
during this period but must do so through the usual fee application process. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the court may shorten the period if Mr. Moran persuades the court that he has met
various voluntary benchmarks described below concerning CLE and the LJAP. Finally, the court
will also include a “drop dead” provision to ensure that Mr. Moran observes his reciprocal
discipline reporting obligations and avoids sanctionable behavior in the Western District going
forward.
Case:26-72001-swd Doc #:4 Filed: 05/21/26 Page 7 of 10

The court regards today’s En Banc Opinion and Order as imposing a censure and a
sanction, both designed to induce Mr. Moran to bring his conduct into line with the court’s
expectations, rather than drive him out of practice. He has shown promise, at least in the past, as
an attorney who can obtain substantial relief for his clients within this District, and the court
intends through today’s decision to deter future missteps while protecting the public. If, however,
any judge of this court enters an order sanctioning or otherwise reprimanding Mr. Moran for
harming a client by missing response or other filing deadlines, missing court appearances without
satisfactory excuse or pre-arrangement with the court or opposing parties, violating court orders
or rules of any sort, the court will not hesitate to immediately refer the matter to the Chief District
Judge for the Western District of Michigan under L.Gen.R. 2.3(d) (W.D. Mich.) with a request to
expedite the disciplinary proceeding. Under the circumstances, the court regards these measures
as an “appropriate action” within the meaning of Canon 3(B)(6) of the Code of Conduct for United
States Judges.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ryan B. Moran, Esq., is formally
CENSURED and within 21 days after entry of this En Banc Opinion and Order, he shall file in
this Miscellaneous Proceeding an affidavit or solemn declaration establishing to the court’s
satisfaction that he has complied with his self-reporting obligations under M.C.R. 9.120(A)(2) or
similar authority with respect to this order and other orders of discipline referred to herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED for a period commencing upon entry of this En Banc Opinion
and Order and extending for 365 days (the “Sanction Period”) any “no look” chapter 13 fee that
Mr. Moran requests for himself (in a retainer agreement or otherwise), that the chapter 13 trustee
requests on his behalf, or that any judge of this court awards to Mr. Moran in connection with any
Case:26-72001-swd Doc #:4 Filed: 05/21/26 Page 8 of 10

case in which the court has not confirmed a chapter 13 plan as of the entry of today’s order shall
not exceed $2,050.00.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court may reduce the Sanction Period as follows:
(1) by 30 days, if on or before August 20, 2026, Mr. Moran files an affidavit or solemn
declaration establishing to the court’s satisfaction that he has (a) entered into an agreement with
the LJAP for a confidential professional consultation and/or assessment as determined by LJAP,
(b) that he has completed such consultation and/or assessment, (c) that he has in good faith
complied with any recommended follow-up, and (d) that he has executed a release to authorize
LJAP to confirm his participation in the LJAP consultation and/or assessment;
(2) by 30 days if, on or before October 20, 2026, Mr. Moran files an affidavit or solemn
declaration establishing to the court’s satisfaction that he has completed a CLE course, online or
in person, in law practice management;
(3) by 30 days if, on or before October 20, 2026, Mr. Moran files an affidavit or solemn
declaration establishing to the court’s satisfaction that he has completed a CLE course, online or
in person, in consumer bankruptcy; and
(4) by 30 days if, on or before October 20, 2026, Mr. Moran files an affidavit or solemn
declaration establishing to the court’s satisfaction that a paraprofessional in his employ and
assisting with Western District cases has completed a CLE course, online or in person, for
paraprofessionals in a subject the court regards as germane to bankruptcy practice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court shall refer Mr. Moran for disciplinary
proceedings under L.Gen.R. 2.3(d) (W.D. Mich.) if, during the Sanction Period, he violates this
En Banc Opinion and Order, a judge of this court enters an order disciplining Mr. Moran pursuant
to LBR 9010-1(b), or a judge of this court otherwise enters an order reprimanding or sanctioning
Case:26-72001-swd Doc #:4 Filed: 05/21/26 Page 9 of 10

Mr. Moran for unexcused failure to respond to any motion or appear as ordered at a hearing
scheduled in a case concerning his client, comply with any court order, local rule, Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure, or applicable statute touching and concerning practice before this court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this En Banc Opinion
and Order pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9022 and LBR 5005-4 upon Ryan B. Moran, Esq., and the
United States Trustee, by First Class U.S. Mail.
FOR THE COURT, EN BANC
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated May 21, 2026
Case:26-72001-swd Doc #:4 Filed: 05/21/26 Page 10 of 10