BOA10 MLMOCRS JOHN L. COlL. C U A I l ~ n s O N LEO A. rAIWAT m s O l CLEMENT H. NCRN DAVID BAIER LEWIS. SCCIICTAW FRAU* J. MCDNITT. 0 . 0 . WlLLlAW 0 . lLAMOY LIMN SMCCTCl. H . VICE-CMAIRPCRSON
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MLlLlNG ADDRESS: P. 0. C4OX I 4 9 DETROIT. YICl4IOAN 48231
JOHN I.I .DWAIHV EXECUTIVE OlRCCTOl S GENERAL COUN3CL
SUITE I t 8 0 333 *.FORT STREET OCTROIT. MICHIGAN 48220 TCLEPHONC: (~ I~9) 8 3 - 5 5 5 3
NWICE OF CONCURRENT SUSPENSIONS
DAVID A. W O N (P 172251, 1575 E. Lafayet te , De t ro i t , H I 48226, by an Order of t h e Attorney Disc ip l ine Board f o r concurrent suspensions i n two separa te d i s c i p l i n a r y f i l e s .
(1) Suspensions ; (2) For per iods of 30 days ( F i 10 days ( F i l e DP-126/81)
l e DP-116/80) and t o run concurrently;
I
(3) Ef fec t ive ~ovember2 4, 1982. (Ef fec t ive d a t e of Supreme Court Order dismissing Respondent' s app l ica t ion f o r leave t o appea l ) .
The hearing panel found t h a t Respondent was r e t a i n e d f o r t h e purpose of conducting a p a t e n t search and an opinion a s t o t h e patent-
a b i l i t y of c l i e n t ' s invent ion, t h a t Respondent was pa id a f e e of $300, t h a t t h e search and opinion were performed by Respondent, t h a t on t h e b a s i s of Respondent's opinion, canplainant re ta ined Rsspondent t o process t h e pa ten t app l ica t ion f o r a fee of $900 paid by t h e c l i e n t , t h a t Respon- dent mailed a p a t e n t a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e c l i e n t a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l app l ica t ion had been "up dated" when, i n f a c t , no o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n had been f i l e d on behalf o f t h e c l i e n t , t h a t t h e r e a f t e r Respondent f a i l e d t o advise t h e c l i e n t regarding t h e s t a t u s of t h e mat ter u n t i l Respondent had the c l i e n t s i g n a new p a t e n t app l ica t ion almost th ree years a f t e r the time of o r i g i n a l r e t a i n e r , t h a t Respondent f u r t h e r neglected t h e mat ter by f a i l i n g t o provide the c l i e n t wi th t imely no t ice of t h e per iod i n which t o appeal r e j e c t i o n of t h e app l ica t ion , i n v i o l a t i o n of GCR 1963, 953(2)-(4) and the Code of Profess ional ~ e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,t o-wit: Canon 1, DR1-102 (A) (4 ) (61, Canon 6 , DR6-101 (A) (3) .
,
In a separa te mat ter , t h e Board found t h a t Respondent was pa id $1,302 t o apply f o r a p a t e n t , f a i l e d t o f i l e t h e pa ten t app l ica t ion , knowingly made f a l s e s ta tements t o t h e c l i e n t regarding the f i l i n g of an
app l ica t ion and rendered no s e r v i c e s t o t h e c l i e n t f o r t h e fees paid i n v io la t ion o f GCR 1963, 953(2-4) and DR6-lOl(A) ( 3 ) and DR2-106(B) ( 4 ) . Costs were assessed i n these mat ters i n t h e amounts of $451.56 and 5179.50. The Respondent withdrew appeals pending before the Disc ip l ine Board and the Supreme Court. .,11. .-' 1 . L Z ,
nrr i z IOQ?
AV!3 f . ^ .K12 Lfibl:S, Secretary of the ;.:;r:. -y 9i:ci;lico l3c;rd AUTOMATIC REINSTATEMENT EPFEC1'J VI*: 1 2/2 7 / 8 2 .