MEMBERS JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN
KAREN D. O’DONOGHUE LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD MICHAEL S. HOHAUSER PETER A. SMIT
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 (By Consent)
Case No. 19-98-GA Notice Issued: October 2, 2020 Marc J. Shefman, P 65021, Royal Oak, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #67.
Suspension - 60 Days, Effective September 24, 2020 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for 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. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the allegations that he committed acts of professional misconduct in relation to one client’s settlement funds, and another client’s collection matters.
Based on respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, in a 2-1 decision, the panel majority accepted the parties’ stipulation and found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to promptly notify the client when the funds in which the client had an interest were received, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(1); failed to promptly pay or deliver funds that the client or a third person is entitled to receive, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3); and, failed to appropriately safeguard funds in his IOLTA, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d). The panel majority also found that respondent violated MCR 9.104(2) and (3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 60 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,047.20. A dissenting panelist would have rejected the stipulation for consent order of discipline concluding that the agreed upon discipline was insufficient for the admitted misconduct.
/s/ Mark A. Armitage Executive Director