MEMBERS JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER PETER A. SMIT ALAN GERSHEL LINDA M. ORLANS
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147
PHONE: 313-963-5553
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR — KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL — SHERRY MIFSUD
OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR — ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER — JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY —
www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)
Case No. 20-64-GA Notice Issued: December 18, 2020 Deborah K. Schlussel, P 56420, Southfield, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #79.
Reprimand, Effective December 4, 2020 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline and Waiver in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct in her representation of one client that retained her to represent her in a qui tam lawsuit against her former employer, and in her representation of other clients who were investors who had purchased properties in Detroit from a property company named ASM Services, LLC. (ASM), who wanted to file a lawsuit alleging that ASM fraudulently represented the condition of the properties.
Specifically, the panel found that respondent handled a legal matter which the lawyer knew or should have known she was not competent to handle, without associating with a lawyer who was competent to handle the matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1(a); neglected legal matters entrusted to her, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3; and failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3); and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $758.20.
/s/ Mark A. Armitage Executive Director