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
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 —
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147
PHONE: 313-963-5553
www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS Case No. 20-43-GA Notice Issued: June 11, 2021 Lawrence B. Shulman, P 45075, Royal Oak, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #68.
Suspension - 180 Days, Effective April 10, 2021 After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that respondent committed professional misconduct as charged in a three-count formal complaint. Specifically with regard to Count One, the panel found that, while representing a client in a securities fraud matter, respondent failed to enter into a written retainer agreement with his client; failed to advise his client that the AUSA had sent a proposed plea and cooperation agreement for at least ten months; failed to meaningfully communicate with the AUSA in his client’s matter, which led to his client’s arrest without notice; delayed in sending his client a copy of his file after his arrest; and failed to provide his client with an accounting, when requested, and to return any unearned fees.
With regard to Count Two, the panel found that after his license was suspended for 90 days in Grievance Administrator v Lawrence B. Shulman, 17-1-GA, respondent failed to notify his client referenced in Count One of his suspension and continued to communicate with him regarding the securities fraud matter during the time that his license was suspended; lied to his client when he learned of respondent’s suspension, and, in his MCR 9.119 affidavit of compliance, failed to identify his client or state that he notified his client or the AUSA of his suspension, even though he continued contact with them.
With regard to Count Three, the panel found that respondent failed to appear for a sworn statement when subpoenaed by the Grievance Administrator; and, failed to answer a Grievance Administrator’s Request for Investigation.
Based on respondent’s default, the panel found that with regard to Count One, respondent failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available means permitted by law, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3; 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); failed to notify the client promptly of all settlement offers and proposed plea bargains, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain
June 11, 2021
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
Page 2
a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); upon request by the client, failed to promptly render a full accounting of funds held for the client, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); upon termination of representation, failed to take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests, including surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of criminal law, where such conduct reflected adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
As to Count Two, the panel found that respondent violated an order of discipline, in violation of MCR 9.104(9); failed to notify his client that he was suspended from the practice of law and unable to represent him, in violation of MCR 9.119(A); failed to notify the AUSA in New Jersey of his suspension from the practice of law, in violation of MCR 9.119(B); continued to practice law after the effective date of the order of suspension, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(1); had contact with a client after the effective date of the order of suspension, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(2); continued to hold himself out as an attorney after the effective date of the order of suspension, in violation of MCR 9.119(E)(4); made a materially false statement in his affidavit claiming full compliance with the terms and conditions of the order of suspension, in violation of MCR 9.123(A); engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of criminal law, where such conduct reflected adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
As to Count Three, the panel found that respondent failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113, in violation of MCR 9.104(7); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 180 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Respondent filed a timely petition for review but failed to file the required brief in support of his petition. On May 11, 2021, the Attorney Discipline Board issued an order dismissing respondent’s petition for review. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,464.00.