MEVrjERS PATRICK J. KEATING CHAIRFAAN
MARTIN M. D- O- CTOROFF VICE CHAIRMAN
2HARLES C. VINCENT, M.D.
SECRETARY REMONA A. GREEN HANLEY M. GURWIN ROBERT S. HARRISON ODESSA KOMER
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECU NVE DIRECTOR 6 GENERAL COUNSEL
SUITE 1260 333 W. FORT STREET
DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226 Area Code 313 963-5553
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION - F i l e No. DP 36/86; DP 77/86 A l f r e d G. Kaufman, P 27926, 210 N. Maple, S a l i n e , M I 48176, by Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board Wayne County Hearing Pane l # lo .
1 ) Suspension, 120 days, 2) E f f e c t i v e August 20, 1986. The Respondent, who i s admi t ted to p r a c t i c e i n the S t a t e s of Michigan and Wyoming, was suspended f o r a per iod of n i n e t y (90) days by a n Order of D i s c i p l i n e which became e f f e c t i v e J u l y 24, 1985. ( F i l e No. DP 90184, see Notice of Suspension da ted J u l y 26, 1985.) I n t h a t Order, the Respondent was d i r e c t e d t o pay c o s t s t o the S t a t e Bar of Michigan i n the amount of $240.92. H i s f a i l u r e t o pay those c o s t s prompted a Request f o r I n v e s t i g a t i o n served by the Grievance Adminis t ra tor i n November 1985. I n A p r i l 1986, the Grievance Adminis t ra tor f i l e d a Formal Complaint based upon the Respondent 's f a i l u r e to comply w i t h t h e c o s t p rov i s ion of the previous Order and h i s f a i l u r e t o Answer the Request f o r I n v e s t i g a t i o n . A s second Complaint was au tho r i zed and f i l e d i n May 1986 charg ing t h a t Respondent 's f a i l u r e t o Answer the F i r s t Complaint cons ti tu ted a s e p a r a t e a c t of misconduct.
I n i t s Repor t , t he Hearing Panel noted t h a t by h i s f a i l u r e to appear a t the hear ing , the Respondent waived h i s r i g h t t o o f f e r any m i t i g a t i n g evidence. " I n the absence of m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s , w e t h e r e f o r e cons ide r on ly the aggrava t ing e f f e c t of t h i s Respondent' s appa ren t i n d i f f e r e n c e to the consequences of h i s f a i l u r e t o comply wi th a n Order to Pay Costs, f a i l u r e t o Answer a Request f o r I n v e s t i g a t i o n and f a i l u r e t o Answer a Formal Complaint" .
Respondent was found to have v i o l a t e d the provis ions of MCR 9.104(1-4,7,8); MCR 9.113(1,2); MCR 9.115(D) and Canon 1 of the Code of P r o f e s s i o n a l Respons ib i l i t y DR 1 - 1 0 2 ( ~ ) ( 1 , 5 , 6 ) . A s a
r e s u l t of t h i s Order suspending h i s l i c e n s e f o r a per iod of 120 days, Respondent w i l l be s u b j e c t to the r e in s t a t emen t requirements s e t f o r t h i n MCR 9.123(B) and MCR 9.124. Costs were
a s se s sed i n the amount of $64.10.
Note: Respondent's l i c e n s e to p r a c t i c e i n Michigan has been suspended cont inuously s i n c e J u l y 24, 1985, the e f f e c t i v e d a t e of a p r i o r -Order of D i s c i p l i n e suspending h i s l i c e n s e to p r a c t i c e law f o r a p e r i o d of n i n e t y ( 9 0 ) days . Al though e n t i t l e d t o au tomat ic r e in s t a t emen t under MCR 9.123(A), Respondent has ' n o t f i l e d a n A f f i d a v i t of Compliance a s requi red by that r u l e and t h a t suspension has n o t been terminated.