MEMBERS ROBERT S. HARRISON CHAIRMAN
LfANLEY M. GURWlN VICE CHAIRMAN
CHARLES C. VINCENT. M.D.
SECRETARY HON. MARTIN M. O O C T O R O ~ REMONA A. GREEN PATRICK J. KEATING THEODORE P. ZE GOURAS
STATE OF MICHIGAN
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION F i l e No. DP 52/86
JOHN F. VAN BOLT M E C U T M OIRECTOI) 6 G E N m L COUNSEL
SUITE 1280 333 W FORT STREET
DETROIT. MICHIGAN 4822 Area Coda 313 963555j
0. Lee Mole t te , P 17877, 410 Palms Building, D e t r o i t , M I 48226 by t h e Attorney suspension.
D i s c i p l i n e
Board
modifying
a
hea r ing
pane l
o rde r
of
1 ) Suspension - t h r e e y e a r s ;
2 ) E f f e c t i v e February 22, 1986. I n an o r d e r f i l e d January 27, 1988, t h e Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board a f f i r m e d t h e t h r e e y e a r s u s p e n s i o n imposed by t h e h e a r i n g p a n e l b u t modif ied t h e e f f e c t i v e da t e . Respondent has been suspended con t inuous ly s i n c e February 22, 1986, t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of an o r d e r of suspens ion i s s u e d i n a prev ious c a s e ( s e e Notice of Suspension da ted June 13 , 1986 i n
F i l e No. DP 128184). The three-year suspension i n t h i s ca se i s ordered t o run concu r r en t ly w i th Respondent 's suspension i n t h e previous ma t t e r .
Based upon t h e evidence presen ted , t h e pane l concluded t h a t Respondent was r e t a i n e d t o r ep re sen t a c l i e n t i n a c r imina l proceeding i n t h e United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court i n D e t r o i t , Michigan. Contrary t o h i s o b l i g a t i o n s t o r ep re sen t h i s c l i e n t competently and e x p e d i t i o u s l y and d e s p i t e l e t t e r s , n o t i c e s and o r d e r s from both t h e District Court and t h e Court of Appeal, Respondent f a i l e d t o pursue a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e remedies on behalf of h i s c l i e n t wi th t he r e s u l t t h a t t h e appea l w a s d i smissed f o r want of prosecut ion. Respondent 's conduct was found t o be i n v i o l a t i o n of MCR 9.104(2-4) and Canons 1 , 6 and 7 o f t h e Code of P r o f e s s i o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y , DR 1-102(A)(5,6); DR 6-10l(A)(2,3) and DR 7-101(A)(l-3).
I n determining t h e a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l of d i s c i p l i n e , t h e hea r ing pane l and t h e Board cons idered Respondent 's p r i o r h i s t o r y of p r o f e s s i o n a l misconduct which has r e s u l t e d i n t h r e e o r d e r s of reprimand i s s u e d i n 1971, 1976 and 1978 and f i v e suspens ion o r d e r s i s sued s i n c e 1983 w i t h suspens ions ranging from t h i r t y t o 120 days. Costs i n t h e s e proceedings were a s s e s s e d i n t he amount of $346.11. ;'Jv&j
John; E . VanBolt