Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS WILLIAM J. DANHOF

CHAIRPERSON THOMAS G. KIENBAUM VICE-CHAIRPERSON WILLIAM l. MATTHEWS, CPA

SECRETARY BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D. ANDREA l. SOLAK ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. CARL E. VER BEEK

CRAIG H. LUBBEN JAMES M. CAMERON, JR.

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MARK A. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JENNIFER M. PETTY LEGAL ASSISTANT

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

WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

FINAL NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS Case No. 06-174-GA Notice Issued: February 9, 2009 Lawrence E. Schultz, P 20097, Southfield, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board, affirming the order of Tri-County Hearing Panel #52.

1. Suspension - 45 Days 2. Effective January 31, 2009 The hearing panel found that respondent handled two divorce matters without preparation adequate in the circumstances; represented two clients when the representation was directly adverse to one another; and failed to withdraw from one of the divorce matters when he was made aware of the conflict. Respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(b); 1.7(a); 1.16(a)(1); and 8.4(a).

The hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 45 days and that he pay restitution in the amount of $570.00.

Respondent filed a petition for review and requested a stay of the discipline, which was granted. Upon review, the Attorney Discipline Board affirmed the hearing panel's Order of Suspension and Restitution, but imposed additional conditions relevant to the established misconduct.

Respor)dent then filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied on January 9, 2009. On January 15, 2009, the Attorney Discipline Board issued its order dissolving the stay in this matter, effective January 31,2009. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,588.29.

Dated:

February 9, 2009 --------

 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.