MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF
CHAJRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM L. MATIHEWS, 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 DEPUTY DIRECTOR JENNIFER M. PErn LEGAL ASSISTANT
211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226·3236 PHONE, 313·963·5553 FAX,313·963·5571
WWW.ADBMICH.ORG
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION (By Consent)
Case Nos. 08-187-GA; 09-55-GA Notice Issued: February 18, 2010 Sheldon M. Scharg, P 27718, West Bloomfield, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #81.
1. Reprimand 2. Effective February 18, 2010 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Respondent pleaded no contest to the allegations that, in one matter, he failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions about the representation; knowingly failed to respond to the lawful demands for information from a disciplinary agency during the investigation of a Request for Investigation. In a second matter, respondent pleaded no contest to the allegations that he neglected the legal matter; failed to seek the client's objectives; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client; failed to refund the advance payment of a fee that was not earned upon termination of the representation; failed to timely answer the Request for Investigation; and knowingly failed to respond to lawful demands for information from a disciplinary agency during the investigation of a Request for Investigation.
Respondent's conduct was alleged to be in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1 )-(4) and (7); MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 1.16(d); 8.1 (a)(2); and 8.4(a) and (c).
Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and pay restitution in the amount of $2,000.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $824.73.
Dated:
FEB 182010
_