MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DER WIELE CHAIRPERSON REV. MICHAEL MURRAY VICE-CHAIRPERSON DULCE M. FULLER SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN
JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY
KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR.
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
211 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1410
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963ยท5553 I FAX: 313-963-5571
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRA TOR
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case Nos. 16-6-JC; 16-7-GA Notice Issued: May 26,2017 William G. Shanaberger, P 41912, Royal Oak, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #74.
Suspension - 90 Days, Effective June 1, 2017 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a 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 admission that he was convicted of allowing an unlicensed person to operate a motor vehicle, in violation of MCl257.325, in People of the City of Birmingham v William G. Shanaberger, 48th District Court Case No. 15BC01157B; and admission to the allegation that he committed professional misconduct when he filed an answer to an Attorney Grievance Commission Request for I nvestigation in which he failed to fully and fairly detail all of the facts and circumstances leading to his arrest because he was inaccurate in describing his conduct.
Based on the parties' stipulation, respondent's conviction, and his admissions in the stipulation, the panel found that respondent failed to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, in violation of MRPC 8.1 (a)(2); failed to fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances in response to demands for information made in a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.113(A); and engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or a tribal law, in violation of MCR 9.104(5). Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1) and (2) and MRPC 8.4(a) and(c). In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days. Additionally, the panel ordered that respondent be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs w~~sse~sed in the amount of $1,685.12. '~a~
Mark A. Armitage