REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Mohammed Abdrabboh, P61989, Dearborn. Reprimand, Effective February 18, 2026.
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #17. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct in the formal complaint. Based on the parties’ stipulation and respondent’s admissions, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct by failing to properly manage his IOLTA trust account.
Based upon respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent: failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); deposited his own funds in a trust account in an amount in excess of an amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees or to obtain a waiver of service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2), and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, honesty, ethics, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,399.99.
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Marc Aaron Asch, P75499, Kalamazoo. Reprimand, Effective February 26, 2026.
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #1. Based on the parties’ amended stipulation, respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations, and no contest plea to the allegations of professional misconduct, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct while representing a client in a federal racial discrimination lawsuit when he failed to respond to discovery and court filings, missed hearings, failed to communicate with his client, and allowed the case to be dismissed with sanctions, of which the client was unaware. Although the court later reopened the case after respondent admitted significant errors and was permitted to withdraw, respondent failed to promptly turn over the client’s case file as ordered.
Specifically, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of his 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 withdraw from the representation of the client when the representation would result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law, in violation of MRPC 1.16(a)(1); knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); in pretrial procedure, failed to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party, in violation of MRPC 3.4(d); engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4).
In accordance with the amended stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $912.14.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Jalal J. Dallo, P72879, Bloomfield Hills. Suspension — 45 Days, Effective February 4, 2026.
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #4. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 4, and respondent’s no-contest pleas to the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 5 through 62 of the first amended formal complaint. Additionally, the stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in paragraphs 63(b), and 63(d) through (i) of the first amended formal complaint. Specifically, it was alleged that during respondent’s representation of a client in a criminal matter, he accepted an envelope of documents from his client to provide to a third person, some of which contained requests and demands for the third person to contact the victim in the matter in order to convince her to change her testimony. Due to his conduct, respondent eventually withdrew from the representation and was eventually removed from the Oakland County Indigent Defense Services Office list of approved attorneys. The stipulation also contained the parties’ agreement that the allegations of professional misconduct in paragraphs 63(a) and 63(c) of the first amended formal complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The stipulation further contained the parties’ agreement that, upon the panel’s acceptance of the parties’ agreement, respondent would be suspended for a period of 45 days.
Based on respondent’s admissions and no contest pleas, the panel found that respondent: knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c); knowingly assisted or induced another to violate the rules or obligations under the rules of a tribunal, or did so through the acts of another, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and, engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court, in violation of MCR 9.104(4).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 45 days, effective February 4, 2026. Costs were assessed in the amount of $773.20.
AUTOMATIC INTERIM SUSPENSION
Vanessa F. McCamant, P68254, Spring Lake. Effective June 9, 2025.
On June 9, 2025, respondent was convicted by guilty plea of Operating While Intoxicated/Impaired - 3rd Offense, a felony under MCL 257.625(11)(c)/PACC 257.6256D, in State of Michigan v Vanessa Fosse McCamant, 17th Circuit - Kent County Circuit Court, Case No. 25-00712-FH. Upon respondent’s conviction and in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended.
Upon the filing of a judgment of conviction, this matter will be assigned to a hearing panel for further proceedings. The interim suspension will remain in effect until the effective date of an order filed by a hearing panel under MCR 9.115(J).
REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
Steven E. Scharg, P43732, Detroit. Reprimand, Effective February 27, 2026.
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #9. The stipulation contained respondent’s no contest pleas to the factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1-8, and 11-33 and allegations of professional misconduct contained in paragraph 34, sub-paragraphs (b) and (e) of the formal complaint. Specifically, respondent collected an excessive fee and failed to refund an unearned fee, and made a knowingly false statement of material fact to the Grievance Administrator during the investigation of the underlying request for investigation. The stipulation further contained the parties’ agreement that paragraphs 9, 10, and 34, sub-paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (f) be dismissed.
Based upon respondent’s no contest pleas and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to refund an advance payment of fee that had not been earned upon termination of representation, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); and, engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and required him to pay restitution in the amount of $13,603.19. Costs were assessed in the amount of $761.87.
REINSTATEMENT
Jarrod A. Barron, P55353, East Lansing. Reinstated, Effective February 26, 2026.
Petitioner was disbarred effective August 13, 2014, in Grievance Administrator v Jarrod A. Barron, Case No. 14-22-GA. On October 15, 2024, petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to MCR 9.123(B), which was assigned to Livingston County Hearing Panel #1. After a hearing on the petition, the panel entered an order of eligibility for reinstatement with conditions on February 26, 2025.
On February 26, 2026, the Board received written verification from the State Board of Law Examiners that petitioner is entitled to recertification as a member of the State Bar of Michigan and from the State Bar of Michigan that petitioner paid his bar dues in accordance with Rules 2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules concerning the State Bar of Michigan.
The Board issued an Order of Reinstatement reinstating petitioner to the practice of law in Michigan, effective February 26, 2026.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
On December 19, 2025, the Supreme Court denied respondent’s application for leave to appeal seeking review of the Board’s August 8, 2025 Order Denying Respondent’s Reconsideration Motion, and May 29, 2025 Order Affirming, In Part, and Vacating, In Part Findings of Misconduct, and Affirming Order of 30-Day Suspension. Pursuant to MCR 9.122(C), the 30-day suspension of respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan became effective January 10, 2026.
On February 2, 2026, respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A), attesting that she has fully complied with all requirements of the panel’s order and will continue to comply with the order until and unless reinstated. The Grievance Administrator did not file an objection to respondent’s affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A); and the Board being otherwise advised;
NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Deborah K. Schlussel, P56420, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan, effective February 9, 2026.
HEARING ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
Notice is given that Carl L. Collins, III, P55982, has filed a petition for reinstatement in the Federal District Court, Eastern District of Michigan and with the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking reinstatement as a member of the Bar of this state and restoration of his license to practice law.
Based on Petitioner’s conviction in the Federal District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Petitioner was convicted by a federal jury of five counts of Making a False Tax Return, a felony, in violation of 26 USC § 7602(1), in the matter titled United States v Carl L. Collins, III, Case No. 19-cr-20685.
The Tri-County Hearing Panel #60 automatically suspended Petitioner’s license to practice law in Michigan, effective November 16, 2022, the date of Petitioner’s conviction.
Based on Petitioner’s conviction, the Tri-County Hearing Panel #60 found that Petitioner engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5), and engaged in conduct involving a violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b).
The Panel ordered that Petitioner’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for three years, effective November 16, 2022, and until further order of the Board.
On October 29, 2024, a Final Notice was issued by the hearing panel of the Attorney Discipline Board, effective November 16, 2022, which ordered that Petitioner’s license to practice law be suspended for three years.
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 or revocation of his license, whichever is applicable, has elapsed;
3. He has not practiced or attempted to practice law contrary to the requirement of his suspension or revocation;
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 revocation of a reinstatement.
A hearing is scheduled for Thursday, June 11, 2026, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the office of the Attorney Discipline Board, 333 W. Fort Street, Suite 1700, Detroit, MI 48226, (313) 963-5553.
Any interested person may appear at such hearing and be heard in support of or in opposition to said petition for reinstatement. Any person having information bearing on the Petitioner’s eligibility for reinstatement should contact:
Pamela I. Linville,
Senior Associate Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
755 W. Big Beaver, Suite 2100
Troy, MI 48084
(313) 961-6585