MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DER WIELE 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 ADMINISTRA TOR
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITION (By Consent)
Case No. 17-125-RD Notice Issued: August 14, 2018 Jay M. Schloff, P 60183, West Bloomfield, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #63.
Reprimand, Effective August 10, 2018. In a reciprocal discipline proceeding under MCR 9.120(C), the Grievance Administrator filed a certified copy of a Final Order, reprimanding respondent and placing him on a 24-month probationary period, entered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, dated July 21, 2017, In the Matter of Jay M. Schloff, Proceeding No. 02017-22. The United States Patent and Trademark Office determined that respondent committed the following misconduct: failed to obtain informed consent for limited-scope representation (37 CFR 11.1 02(c); see MRPC 1.2(b»; failed to promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent is required, failed to reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished, and failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter (37 CFR 11.1 04(a)(1 )-(3); see MRPC 1.2(a) and MRPC 1.4(a)-(b»; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client (37 CFR 11.103; see MRPC 1.3); failed to withdraw from representation when the practitioner is discharged (37CFR 1 1.116(a)(3); see MRPC 1.16(a)(3»; and upon termination of representation, failed to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client and allowing time for employment of other counsel (37 CFR 11.116(d); see MRPC 1.16(d)). The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MeR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains the parties' agreement that a reprimand constitutes comparable discipline in this matter.
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and subject to the condition that, if respondent is subject to an increase in discipline due to conduct during the probationary period in the United States Patent and Trademark Office matter, he shall be subject to a show cause proceeding in this matter to determine whether discipline should be increased accordingly. Costs were assessed in the amount of $757.50.
~aa..~ ar:k A. Armitage Executive Director