MEMEERS MARTIN M. WCTOROFf O U I R Y * N ROBERT S. HARRISON v a M IRW CHARLES C VINCENT. M.D Y C R n A R r REMONA A GREEN HANLEY M GURWIN PATRICK J KEATING ODESSA KOMER
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOHN F VAN BOLT ExEcunvE O(RH:TOR 6 GENERA -L COU NSEL SUITE Irn 233 W M R T S TREET DETROtT M K U W wz?a
A r u C m 313 %3.W
NOTICE OF SUSPWSION
F i l e Nos. DP 121/84; DP 130185 John C. Nouradian, P 18040, 285 Whims Court, Rochester, H I by an Order of the Hichigan Supreme Court denying Application f o r Leave to Appeal an Order of the Attorney Disc ip l ine Board dated November 3 , 1986. 1 ) Suspensiotl - 60 days;
2) Effect ive January 26 , 1987. The Formal Compla i n t a consol ida tad f o r hearing charged t h a t Respondent had f a i l e d to comply u i t h the provis iona contained i n three p r i o r d i s c i p l i n e o rde r s r equ i r ing the payment o f c o s t s t o t h e S t a t e Bar o f Michigan a s re imbursement f o r expenses incurred i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n and trial of those cases .
I t was f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t Respondent had n o t f i l e d t i m e l y answers t o the Requests f o r Invest iga t i o a served by the Administrator and t h a t ha f a i l e d to answer the Formal Complaint which was served on August 30, 1985. The Panel concluded t h a t Respondent's f a i l u r e to discharge h i s o b l i g a t i o n s to comply u i t h th ree o r d e r s of d i s c i p l i n e o r h i s o b l i g a t i o n to anever Requests f o r Inves t i g a t ion and a Fornal Complaint cons ti tuted miscoaduc t i n v i o l a t i o n of HCB 9.104(1,2,4 b 8 ) and Canon 1 of the Code o f P ro fess iona l Respons ib i l i ty , to w i t : DB 1-102(~) (1 ,5 , b 6) .
Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a P e t i t i o n f o r Review f i l e d by Respondent, the Attorney Disc ip l ine Board affirmed the Panel ' s f i n d i n g s . By a m a j o r i t y , t h e Board reduced t h e d i s c i p l i n e
imposed to a suspension of s i x t y days. The e f f e c t of t h a t Order was automat ical ly s tayed upon Respondent's f i l i n g of an A p p l i c a t i o n f o r Leave t o Appeal t o t h e Supreme Cour t . The d i s c i p l i n a ordered by the Board became e f f e c t i v e upon the e n t r y of the Cour t' s Order dated January 26, 1987 denying Respondent' s Appl ica t ion.
NOTE: Reapondent ' s l i c e n s e t o p r a c t i c e was suspended f o r a period of 120 by an Order of the Attorney Disc ip l ine Board which
became e f f e c t i v e O c t o b e r 31, 1986 (DP 8 2 / 8 6 , DP 149 /86 , see Not ice of Suspension dated December 12, 1986). The s i x t y day
auapenaioa order i n t h i s case runs concurrent ly wi th the p r i o r d i a c i p l i n a . In accordance u i t h the provis ions of the e a r l i e r Ordar, the Reapondent w i l l be required to e s t a b l i s h h i s s l i g i b i l l ty f o r re ins ta tement i n accordance wi th M C R 9.123 (8) and 9:qL
FEB 05-97 n a t ~ d :