MEMBEFIS MARTIN M. DOCTOROFF CHAIRMAN
ROBERT S. HARRISON VICE CHAIRMAN
CHARLES C. VINCENT. M.D. SECRETARY
REMONA A. GREEN HANLEY M. GURWIN PATRICK J. KEATING ODESSA KOMER
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR d. GENERAL COUNSEL
SUITE 1260 333 W . F ORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226
Area Code 313 963-5553
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION F i l e No. DP 128184 0. Lee Molet te , P 17887, 2111 Woodward Avenue, S u i t e 410, D e t r o i t , M I 48201 by the Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board inc reas ing suspension.
1 ) Suspension - 120 days;
2 ) E f fec t ive February 22, 1986. The Hearing Panel dismissed two (2) counts of the Complaint f i l e d by the Grievance Administrator b u t found t h a t a t h i r d count had been e s t a b l i s h e d and t h a t Respondent breached a duty to h i s c l i e n t t o prepare a case by a r ranging f o r a medical examination of h i s c l i e n t o r adv i s ing the c l i e n t t h a t medical testimony must be obtained. The Hearing Panel found that Respondent's acts and
omissions cons ti tu ted p ro fe s s iona l misconduct i n v i o l a t i o n of MCR 9.104(1-4) [former GCR 953(1-4)] and Canons 1 ,6 & 7 of the Code of P r o f e s s i o n a l Respons ib i l i t y , to w i t : DR 1-102(A) ( 1 , S & 6 ) , DR 6 - 1 0 1 ( ~ ) ( 2 , 3 ) and DR 7-101(Aj(l-3).
The d i s c i ? l i n e o r i g i n a l l y imposed by the Hearing Panel vas increased to a suspension of 120 days by t he Attorney D i s c i p l i n e Board upon i t s review of the Respondent 's p r i o r d i s c i p l i n a r y h i s t o r y c o n s i s t i n g of t h ree reprimands i n 1971, 1976 and 1978 and th ree p r i o r suspensions, ranging from t h i r t y days to 120 days, i n 1983 and 1984. I n accordance wi th the p rov i s ions of MCR 9.123(B) Respondent w i l l be requi red to undergo r e ins t a t emen t proceedings. Costs were a s se s sed i n the amount of $611.19.
Respondent ' s Motion f o r Reconsidera t i o n was denied by the Board i n an Order da ted June 9 , 1986. A subsequent Appl ica t ion f o r Leave to Appeal was r e j e c t e d by the Supreme Court f o r f a i l u r e
to comply wi th the Cour t ' s f i l i n g requirements .
John F'. VanBolt ' I
Da tdd :
OEC 12m