Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF CHAIRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM L. MATTHEWS, CPA SECRETARY ANDREA L. SOLAK ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. 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 DEPU7Y DIRECTOR

JENNIFER M. PETTY LEG/lJ. ASSISTANT

211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553 FAX: 313-963-5571 WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

DISMISSAL Case No. 09-73-GA Ivie J. Shelton, P 44411, Southfield, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #74.

1. Dismissal 2. Effective June 5, 2010 Respondent was charged with failing to provide competent representation; communicating about the subject of the representation with a person(s) he knew to have managerial responsibility on behalf of an organization, and with any other person whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability or whose statement may constitute an admission on the part of the organization, without the consent of the other lawyer or authorization by law to do so; violating or attempting to violate the standards of professional conduct; engaging in conduct that 'is prejudicial to the administration of justice; engaging in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach; and engaging in conduct that 'is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals. The complaint further alleged that respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1 )-(3); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1; 4.2; and 8.4(a) and (c).

The panel found that the Grievance Administrator did not bear its burden of proof that respondent's isolated conduct amounted to a breach of ethics. No costs were assessed against respondent.

John .

Dated: __________

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.