Case Information
Attorney: Deborah K. Schlussel (P 56420)
Case No.: 23-093-GA
County: Oakland
City: Southfield, Michigan
Discipline: 30-Day Suspension
Effective Date: January 10, 2026
Quick Facts
Who is the attorney?
Deborah K. Schlussel, P 56420, Southfield, Michigan.
What discipline was imposed?
A 30-day suspension from the practice of law.
Why was discipline imposed?
Professional misconduct findings related to neglect and lack of diligence in two separate compassionate release representations.
Was the discipline contested?
Yes. The respondent sought Board review, reconsideration, and Supreme Court review. The suspension was ultimately affirmed.
Were costs assessed?
Yes. Costs totaling $3,143.76 were imposed.
Discipline Summary
The Attorney Discipline Board ordered the 30-day suspension of Deborah K. Schlussel’s Michigan law license following findings of professional misconduct arising from her representation of two clients in separate compassionate release matters.
Although the suspension was stayed during appellate proceedings, the discipline became effective January 10, 2026, after the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
Applicable Court Rules
This matter proceeded under Michigan Court Rules and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorney diligence, communication, client protection, and professional misconduct, including:
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
- MRPC 1.1(c) – Neglect of a legal matter
- MRPC 1.3 – Lack of reasonable diligence and promptness
- MRPC 1.4(a) – Failure to keep a client reasonably informed
- MRPC 1.16(d) – Failure to protect client interests upon termination
- MRPC 8.4(b) – Professional misconduct
Michigan Court Rules
- MCR 9.104(1)–(3) – Grounds for discipline
- MCR 9.115 – Hearing and disciplinary procedures
- MCR 9.118 – Board review and reconsideration
- MCR 9.122 – Supreme Court review
As with all attorney discipline matters, this action falls under Michigan Court Rules, Chapter 9, including the Attorney Discipline Board’s authority under MCR 9.115.
Underlying Conduct
Following a hearing conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, Tri-County Hearing Panel #55 found that Schlussel committed professional misconduct in connection with her representation of two clients in separate compassionate release matters.
The panel found that Schlussel:
- Neglected legal matters entrusted to her,
- Failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness,
- Failed to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters, and
- Failed, in one matter, to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation.
Hearing Panel Findings
Based on the evidence presented, the panel found that Schlussel violated:
- MRPC 1.1(c) (Counts One and Two)
- MRPC 1.3 (Counts One and Two)
- MRPC 1.4(a) (Counts One and Two)
- MRPC 1.16(d) (Count One)
The panel further found violations of MCR 9.104(1)–(3) and MRPC 8.4(b) in both matters. The panel ordered a 30-day suspension of Schlussel’s license.
Sanction
The respondent timely sought review of the panel’s decision and received a stay pursuant to MCR 9.115(K).
After proceedings under MCR 9.118, the Attorney Discipline Board issued an order affirming, in part, and vacating, in part, the findings of misconduct, while affirming the 30-day suspension.
Schlussel’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on August 8, 2025. An application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court was denied on December 19, 2025.
Pursuant to MCR 9.122(C), the suspension became effective January 10, 2026.
Costs were assessed in the total amount of $3,143.76.
Why This Matters
This case highlights the professional obligations attorneys owe to clients in time-sensitive and high-stakes matters, including compassionate release proceedings.
It also illustrates how Michigan’s attorney discipline system provides layered review—through hearing panels, the Attorney Discipline Board, and the Michigan Supreme Court—while ultimately enforcing discipline when misconduct findings are sustained.
Even when discipline is delayed by appellate review, affirmed sanctions take effect once those processes conclude.
