Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

NOTICE OF SUSPENSIONS AND RESTITUTION Case Nos. 90-99-GA; 91-135-GA; 91-189-RD Sandra S. Schultz, P-30269, Carrollton, Michigan (formerly of Ironwood, Michigan), by Attorney Discipline Board Upper Peninsula Hearing Panel #1.

1) Suspension - three years (Case No. 90-99-GA); 2) Suspension - 60 days (Case No. 91-135-GA); 3) Suspension - 120 days (Case No. 91-189-RD); 4) All effective September 10, 1993.

The above-captioned matters were consolidated for hearing before Attorney Discipline Board Upper Peninsula Hearing Panel #1.

Case No. 90-99-GA The panel found misconduct on two counts of failing to safeguard a client's assets; one count of conflict of interest; and two counts of failure to respond to requests for investigation. The panel concluded that respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.103(C); MCR 9.104(1)-(4)and(7); MCR 9.113(B)(2); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) and 8.4(a)-(c). The panel ordered that respondent's license be suspended for three years, that she make restitution to one client in the amount of $23,966.42, and that she participate in mental health counselling.

Case No. 91-135-GA The panel found misconduct on two counts of failing to respond to requests for investigation. The panel concluded that respondent's conduct was in violation of MCR 9.103(C); MCR 9.104(1)-(4)and(7); MCR 9.113(B)(2); and Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b). The panel ordered that respondent's license be suspended for sixty days.

Case No. 91-189-RD The panel found misconduct by virtue of the imposition of discipline against respondent in the State of Wisconsin. The charges in the Wisconsin proceedings involved neglect of a legal matter. The panel ordered that respondent be suspended in Michigan for a period of 120 days, the same discipline imposed in Wisconsin.

Costs were assessed in the amount of $2917.73. Respondent filed a petition for review. She did not request a stay of discipline, and all three suspensions are deemed to be effective September 10, 1993. The petition for review was dismissed for respondent's failure to file the required brief.

NOTE: Respondent's license to practice law in Michigan has been continuously suspended since September 14, 1991.

 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.