Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DERWIELE CHAIRPERSON REV. MICHAEL MURRAY VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN

JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR. LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

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 ADMINISTRATOR

ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY

www.adbmlch.org

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION (Pending Review)

Case No. 17-1-GA Notice Issued: May 8, 2018 Lawrence B. Shulman, P 45075, Birmingham, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #69.

Suspension - 90 Days, effective May 4, 20181 After proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.115 and based on the evidence presented by the parties at the hearings held in this matter, the hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct in his representation of a client in an appeal of a federal criminal conviction, in which respondent failed to prepare and file the brief on appeal, resulting in dismissal of the appeal. Respondent then failed to refund any portion of the fee paid by the client and his wife. The panel also found that respondent failed to answer the request for investigation filed by the client.

The panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter, in violation of MRPC 1.1 (c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); failed to refund an unearned fee upon termination of the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); knowingly made a false statement of material fact or law to a third person in the course of representing a client, in violation of MRPC 4.1; knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information, in violation of MRPC 8.1 (a)(2); engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflected adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); and failed to answer a request for investigation in conformity with MCR 9.113, in violation of MeR 9.104(7). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1 )-(3); and MRPC 8.4(a) and (c).

1 Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since April 25, 2018. Please see Notice of Automatic Suspension for Non-Payment of Costs, issued May 1, 2018.

May 8, 2018

STATE OF MICHIGAN. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

Page 2

The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law be suspended for a period of 90 days and that he be required to pay restitution in the amount of $6,750.00, to his former client's wife, Sejal Bamrolia. The Grievance Administrator filed a timely petition for review and respondent filed a cross-petition for review, along with a petition for a stay of disCipline. On March 14, 2018, the Board issued an order dismissing respondent's cross-petition for review and dissolving respondent's automatic stay based on respondent's failure to file a brief in support of his cross­ petition. As a result, respondent's suspension was to commence on April 12, 2018. The parties filed a stipulation to extend the effective date of respondent's suspension from the practice of law to May 4,2018, which was granted by the Board in an order issued April 12, 2018. The Board's decision as to the Administrator's petition for review remains pending.

ka~ 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.