State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board
In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Jeffrey R. Sharp, P53838, ADB Case No. 21-73-RP

Petitioner

Notice is given that Jeffrey R. Sharp (P53838), has filed a petition in the Michigan Supreme Court, the Attorney Discipline Board, and the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking reinstatement as a member of the State Bar and restoration of his license to practice law in accordance with MCR 9.124(A). In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Jeffrey R. Sharp (P53838), ADB Case No. 21-73-RP.

Effective March 18, 2020, petitioner appeared at the hearing but was in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on petitioner’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 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 petitioner 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). Petitioner was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(3) and MRPC 8.4(b).

The panel ordered that petitioner’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 petition for review, seeking an increase in discipline. A review hearing has been scheduled before the Attorney Discipline Board.

Effective March 18, 2020, petitioner appeared at the hearing but was in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on petitioner’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 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 petitioner 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 MRPC 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). Petitioner was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(3) and MRPC 8.4(b).

The panel ordered that petitioner’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. Petitioner 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.

The Attorney Discipline Board has assigned the reinstatement petition to Tri-County Hearing Panel #10. A virtual hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, January 18, 2022, commencing at 11 a.m., via Zoom video conferencing. Any interested person may participate in the hearing and request to be heard in support of or in opposition to the petition for reinstatement.

In the interest of maintaining the high standards imposed upon the legal profession as conditions for the privilege to practice law in this state and of protecting the public, the judiciary, and the legal profession against conduct contrary to such standards, petitioner will be required to establish his eligibility for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence.

Any person having information bearing on petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:

John K. Burgess, Senior Associate Counsel Attorney Grievance Commission
PNC Center
755 W. Big Beaver, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48084
(313) 961-6585
jkburgess@agcmi.com

Requirements of the Petitioner

The petitioner is required to establish by clear and convincing evidence the following:

1. He desires in good faith to be restored to the privilege to practice law in this state;

2. The term of the suspension ordered has elapsed or five years have elapsed since the disbarment, whichever is applicable;

3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his suspension or disbarment;

4. He has complied fully with the terms of the order of discipline;

5. His conduct since the order of discipline has been exemplary and above reproach;

6. He has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the Bar and will conduct himself in conformity with those standards;

7. He can safely be recommended to the public, the courts, and the legal profession as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and, in general, to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the court;

8. That if he has been out of the practice of law for three years or more, he has been recertified by the Board of Law Examiners; and,

9. He has reimbursed or has agreed to reimburse the Client Protection Fund any money paid from the fund as a result of his conduct. Failure to fully reimburse as agreed is grounds for vacating an order of reinstatement.