MEMBERS STATE OF MICHIGAN REV. MICHAEL MURRAY CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD VlCE·CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN
KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD ANNA FRUSHOUR
211 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1410
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313·963·5553 I FAX: 313·963·5571
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRAT OR
ALLY SON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
DISMISSAL
Case No. 18-33-MZ (Ref. 16-6-JC; 16-7-GA)
William G. Shanaberger, P 41912, Hazel Park, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board vacating Tri-County Hearing Panel #74's order of disbarment and dismissing the Grievance Administrator's Petition for Order to Show Cause.
Dismissal - Effective December 19, 2018.
A show cause hearing was held in this matter on June 4, 2018, based on the Grievance Administrator's Petition for Entry of an Order to Require Respondent to Show Cause Why Discipline Should Not Be Increased for Failure to Comply With Conditions. The Grievance Administrator requested an increase in discipline for respondent's failure to timely comply with the conditions of the Order of Suspension With Conditions (By Consent), entered May 4, 2017. Respondent filed a response to the petition, in which he explained his personal problems and absence from the state had prevented him from being able to timely comply with the conditions in the May 4, 2017 order. In his response, respondent also requested additional time within which to comply. Respondent failed to appear for the June 4, 2018 hearing, and upon his discovery that a hearing was conducted, he immediately filed a motion for rehearing, explaining that he had not received notice of the hearing date, had been in constant contact with counsel for the Grievance Administrator, and had already completed, or was in the process of completing, the conditions imposed on him in the panel's prior order of suspension. The hearing panel entered an order denying respondent's motion for rehearing and issued an order disbarring respondent from the practice law, effective August 8, 2018.
Respondent filed a timely petition for review and a request for a stay of discipline which was granted by the Board on August 7, 2018. Upon review, the Board found that the hearing panel abused its discretion in this case by denying respondent's motion for rehearing because respondent had no actual notice of the hearing, that respondent made a serious effort to comply with the terms of his prior order of discipline as soon as was practicable given his circumstances, and that no actual, discernible harm was caused to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession, and respondent obtained no personal benefit.
The Board entered an order vacating the order of disbarment and dismissing the petition for order to show cause. No costs were assessed against respondent.
()<;L/ Mark A. Armitage Executive Director