MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF
CHAIRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICE· CHAIRPERSON ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. SECRETARY WILLIAM L. MATIHEWS ANDREA L. SOLAK CARL E. VER BEEK CRAIG H. LUBBEN JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARK A. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
JENNIFER M. PETIY LEGAL ASSISTANT
211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT 6 MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PH NE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG
NOTICE OF REVOCATION AND RESTITUTION Case No. 10-52-GA Notice Issued: November 15, 2010
Shelley Stasson, P 30259, West Bloomfield, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #67.
1 . Revocation 2. Effective November 12, 20101 The respondent appeared at the public hearing, but was found to be in default for her failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on that default, the panel found that respondent failed to notify her clients and tribunals of her suspension from the practice of law; failed to file proof of compliance with the order of discipline; and practiced law and held herself out as an attorney after the effective date of her suspension.
Additionally, respondent was found to have failed to keep her clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; failed to communicate with her clients to the extent reasonably necessary for the clients to make informed decisions regarding their representation; charged an illegal and excessive fee; failed to communicate with her clients regarding the basis or rate of her fee; neglected a legal matter; failed to seek the lawful objectives of one of her clients; failed to provide an accounting upon request; failed to surrender papers to a client after termination of the representation; failed to respond to the Grievance Administrator's lawful demand for information; failed to provide competent representation to a client; handled a legal matter which the lawyer knows or should know that the lawyer is not competent to handle, without associating with a lawyer who is competent to handle it; brought a
proceeding in which there was no basis for doing so that was not frivolous; failed to withdraw from representation; and knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.
Respondent's conduct was in violation of Michigan Court Rules 9.1 04(A)(1 )-(4) and (9); and 9.119(A)-(C) and (E); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1; 1.1 (a) and (c); 1.4(a) and
(b); 1.2(a); 1.5(a) and (b); 1.15(b)(3); 1.16(d); 3.1; 3.4(c); 8.1(a)(2); and 8.4(a)-(c).
The hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be revoked and that she pay restitution in the aggregate amount of $20,795.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $ ,014.81.
Dated: ________ 1 Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since December 18, 2008. Please see Final Notice of Suspension and Restitution with Conditions issued April 21,2009.