Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS MARTIN M. DOCTOROFF CHAIRMAN

@ E R T S. HARRISON 'CE CHAIRMAN

t

ARLES C. VINCENT. M.D. SECRETARY

REMONA A. GREEN HANLEY M. GURWIN PATRICK J. KEATING ODESSA KOMER

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & GENERAL COUNSEL

- SUITE 12M1 333 W. H)RT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226

Area Code 313 963-5553

NOTICE OF REVOCATION F i l e Nos. DP 109/86; DP 156/86; DP 128/86; DP 172/86 R a l p h S. Hatt, P 28381, 3005 Oakwood Boulevard, Melvindale, M I ,48122 by Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board Wayne County Hearing Panel #11.

1 ) Revocation; 2 ) E f f e c t i v e February 3 , 1987. The Respondent d id n o t f i l e answers to the fou r Formal Complaints consol ida ted f o r hearing and d i d n o t appear a t the scheduled hear ing on November 17, 1986. The Hearing Panel found t h a t the a l l e g a t i o n s i n those Complaints were e s t ab l i shed . The Report f i l e d by the Hearing Panel c o n t h n e d i t s f ind ings t h a t the Respondent f a i l e d to proper ly account f o r the sum of $37,000 e n t r u s t e d to him on behalf of a decedent ' s e st a t e and ' tha t he misappropriated a p o r t i o n of those funds f o r h i s own use; that he accepted a r e t a i n e r i n a divorce ma t t e r b u t f a i l e d to i n s t i t u t e

s u i t on h i s c l i e n t ' s beha l f ; t h a t he mispresented the s t a t u s of t h a t ca se by g iv ing documents which were f a l s e l y represented t o

be copies of p leadings f i l e d wi th the Court ; t h a t he f a i l e d to answer the Request f o r I n v e s t i g a t i o n f i l e d by the c l i e n t and served by the Grievance Administrator ; and that he f a i l e d t o answer two Formal Complaints. The Panel concluded t h a t Respondent had v i o l a t e d the provis ions of MCR 9.104(1,2, 4-7), MCR 9.113.2 and Canons 1, 6 , 7 & 9 of t he Code of P ro fe s s iona l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y , to w i t : DR 1-102(~)(4-6) ; DR 6-101(A)(l-3) and DR 7-101(~)(1-3) and DR 9-102(~)(B)(2-4) . Costs were assessed i n

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.