MEMBERS PATRICK J. KEATING CHAIRMAN
MARTIN M. DOCTOROFF VICE CHAIRMAN 2HARLES C. VINCENT. M.D. T,AR ,
REMONA A. GREEN HANLEY M. GURWIN ROBERT S. HARRISON ODESSA KOMER
STATE OF MICHIGAN
WOTICg OF SUSPENSION F i l e No. DP 173/85 Robert 1. G e p r , P 13945, 2135 McEwan, Saginaw, Attorney Disc ipl ine Board Saginaw Hearing Panel.
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 6 GENERA -L COU NSEL
SUITE 1260 333 W. FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226
Area Code 313 963-5553
M I 48602 by the
(1) Suspension - 120 days; (2) Effect ive May 20, 1986. The Respondent f a i l e d to Answer the Formal Complaint f i l e d by the Grievance Administrator, f a i l e d to take any ac t ion to set a s i d e the Default which was subsequently entered and f a i l e d to appear a t the hearing held i n Saginaw before a Hearing Panel of the Attorney Disc ipl ine Board.
B
The Hearing Panel found t h a t the Respondent was re ta ined t o represent a c l i e n t i n a c o l l e c t i o n matter and t h a t h i s f a i l u r e to take ac t ion on h i s c l i e n t ' s behal f , h i s f a i l u r e to communicate with the c l i e n t and h i s f a i l u r e to r e t u r n the documents which had been delivered t o him cons ti tu ted profess ional misconduct i n v i o l a t i o n of M C R 9.104(1-4) and Canons 1,6 d 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibi l i ty to w i t : DR
1 -102(~) (5 ) (6 ) ; DR 6 -101(~) (3 ) and DR 7-101(A)(l-3). The Hearing Panel f u r t h e r concluded that the Respondent's f a i l u r e to Answer the Request f o r Inves t iga t ion submitted by the c l i e n t and served by the Grievance Administrator cons ti tuted f u r t h e r miscondut i n v i o l a t i o n of MCR 9.104(1-4)(7); MCR 9.113(B)(2) and Canon 1 of the Code of Profess ional Responsibil i ty DR 1-102(A) (1) (5 ) (6) .
I n i t s considera t ion of the appropr ia te l e v e l of d i s c i p l i n e , the Hearing Panel considered the Respondent's f a i l u r e to answer the Formal Complaint and h i s f a i l u r e to appear a t the hearing and concluded t h a t Respondent' s r e i n s ta tement should be conditioned upon h i s a f f i rmat ive
showing t h a t he has a proper understanding of and a t t i t u d e toward h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to discharge h i s obl igat ions to the cour t s , the public and
the l e g a l system. Respondent w i l l be required to comply with the procedure f o r reinstatement set f o r t h i n M C R 9.123 and 9.124.
Costs were assessed i n
the a m 0 7 of $158.43.