Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

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 š FAX: 313-963-5571

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION Case No. 19-80-GA Notice Issued: July 28, 2020 Jeffrey R. Sharp, P 53838, Troy, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #57.

Suspension - 180 Days, Effective March 18, 2020. Respondent appeared at the hearing but was in default for failing to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on respondent’s default, the hearing panel found that he committed professional misconduct when he practiced law during a time while he was suspended from the practice of law for failing to pay his bar dues, failed to respond to phone calls from a client, made false statements in response to a request for investigation, and failed to respond to a request for additional information from the Grievance Administrator.

The panel found that respondent accepted and collected a new retainer or attorney fee after the date of a suspension under Rule 4 of the State Bar of Michigan, in violation of MCR 9.119(D); practiced law while suspended, in violation of MCR 9.119(E); knowingly made a false statement of material fact to a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(1); and knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(3) and MRPC 8.4(b).

The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 30 days and that he be subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. The Grievance Administrator filed a timely petition for review, seeking an increase in the discipline imposed by the hearing panel. The Attorney Discipline Board conducted a virtual review proceeding via Zoom video-conferencing, in accordance with General Order ADB 2020-1, and MCR 9.118, on May 12, 2020, which included a review of the whole record before the panel, consideration of the Administrator’s brief and the argument presented by counsel for the Administrator. Respondent did not appear for the review proceedings before the Board. On June 30, 2020, an order increasing discipline from a suspension of 30 days to a 180-day suspension and vacating the condition imposed by the panel, was issued by the Board. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,048.13.

/s/ Mark A. Armitage Executive Director

 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.