rra4llb PATRICK J. KEATlNG Cn*WLur
MARTIN M. WCTOAOR VrCEOuUHurv :HARLES C. VINCm. M.0.
sW€TAn* REMONA A. GREEN
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOHN F. VAN BOLT QRXN-. -CQW
s u m tze 323w FORImEET DET#)n. u wa228
..
H A N W M. G U W N ROBERT S. HARRISON OOESSA KOMER
NOTICIS OF SUSPENSION F i l e Nos. DP 171185; DP 5/86 O f f i e T. A. Rashed, P 33618, 13529 Memorial S t r e e t , De t ro i t , M I 48227 by the Attorney Discipl ine Board Dismissing
P e t i t i o n Review f i l e d by Respondent and Affirming the Hearing Panel Order of Suspension.
1) Suspension - 120 days;
2 ) Effect ive September 11, 1986. The Respondent, licensed to p rac t i ce law i n Michigan i n 1982, was t h e s u b j e c t of an Order of P r o b a t i o n e n t e r e d by a Hearing Panel of the Attorney Discipline Board i n March 1985. That Order required that the Respondent f i l e monthly c e r t i f i c a t i o n s by an a t tending physician concerning h i s continued treatment and t h a t he pay c e r t a i n cos t s incurred i n t h a t d i sc ip l ina ry proceeding.
On December 6 , 1985, the Grievance Administrator f i l e d a Formal Complaint i n the i n s t a n t case a l l eg ing that the Respondent had f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Order of Probation a s they re la ted to the f i l i n g of monthly c e r t i f i c a t i o n s from a physician and the payment of costs . Count 11 of that Complaint a l l e g e d t h a t the Respondent f a i l e d t o Answer t h e Request f o r Invest igat ion f i l e d by the Grievance Administrator
i n q u i r i n g a s to h i s non-compliance w i t h the p rev ious Order . Respondent's Default f o r f a i l u r e to Answer t h a t Complaint was f i l e d January 28, 1986 together with a second Complaint charging t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o Answer c o n s t i t u t e d a n a d d i t i o n a l a c t o f misconduct.
The Respondent d i d n o t appear a t the hear ing and the a l l ega t i o m contained i n the consolidated Complaints were deemed to be admitted.
The Respondent f i l e d a timely P e t i t i o n f o r Review of the Hearing Panel Order suspending h i s l icense to pract ice l a w f o r 120 days and the Respondent was ordered by the Attorney Discipline Board to f i l e a br ief s e t t i n g f o r t h the issues and l e g a l author i ty to be argued and to appear before the Board on
Ju ly 23, 1986 to ahow cause why the Bearing Panel Order should not be affirmed. The Respondent did no t f i l e a brief nor did he appear a t the h e a r i n g . Upon t h e Motion of the Gr ievance Admini r t r a t o r , Respondent' s P e t i t ioa f o r Review was dismis sed and the Hearing Panel Order of Suspension affirmed in a l l respects. Total cos t s have been assessed in the amount of $123.85.