UEunEm PATRICK J. KEATlNG (MLYII
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOHN F. VAN BOLT E(KUm aRKTCYP. -COUN -gL
:HAALES C. VINCENT. M.D. I l W T A I I *
REMONA A. GREEN HANLM M. GURWlN ROBERT S. HARRISON ODESSA KOMER
H I .
F i l e Nos. DP 133185; DP 157/85 Marvin R. Smith, P 31393, 485 Orchard Lab Road, Pontiac, 48053 by Attorney Discipline Board Oakland County Bearing
Panel 110.
1) Reprimand; 2) Ef fec t ive June 26, 1986. The Respondent was appointed i n February 1984 to f i l e an appeal on behalf of a defendant convicted of a criminal offense
i n Oakland County. The Respondent f i l e d a not ion f o r New T r i a l i n Apri l 1984 b u t did n o t f i l e a br ief i n support of the motion.
The Respondent f i l e d no objections to the proaecutor'.s not ion to Affirm the Conviction and the trial c o u r t affirmed the conviction
i n December 1984. I n J a n u a r y 1985, t h e Respondent f i l e d a n A p p l i c a t i o n f o r Delayed Appeal on h i a c l i e n t ' s beha l f b u t , desp i te correspondence from the Court of Appeal advising him t h a t the delayed appeal m a d e f i c i e n t , took no fu r ther ac t ion u n t i l a s u b s t i t u t i o n of a t to rneys was ordered by the t r i a l cour t i n J u l y
1985. The Respondent f a i l e d to answer a Requeet f o r Invest igat ion f i l e d with the Attorney Grievance Commission by the def endan t l c l i e n t .
The Formal Complaint f i l e d by the Grievance Administrator a l leged t h a t the foregoing cons ti tuted profess ional misconduct i n v io la t ion of MCR 9.104(1)(2)(4)(7), HCR 9 . 1 1 3 ( ~ )a nd Canons 1, 6, h 7 o f the 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 to w i t : DR 1-102(A)(1)(5)(6), DR 6-101(~)(1-3) and DR 7-101(~)(1-3). The Respondent did n o t f i l e an ansuer to the Complaint and did n o t
f i l e an A f f i d a v i t of Meritorious Defense with h i s subsequent Motion to S e t Aeide the Default entered a g a i n s t him. The Hearing Panel concluded t h a t the a l l ega tiona of miaconduct were e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e e n t r y o f a D e f a u l t . A second Complaint consolidated f o r hearing was dismissed. Costs were assessed i n