BOARD MEMBERS JOHN L . COTE. CHAIRPERSON LEO A. FARHAT MSGR. CLEMENT H . KERN DAVID BAKER LEWIS. SECRETARY FRANK J. MCDEVITT. D . 0 . WILLIAM G . REAMON LYNN H . SHECTER. VICE-CHAIRPERSON
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. BOX 149 DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48231
JOHN F. X-DWAIHY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR i GENERAL COUNSEL
SUITE 1 2 6 0 3 3 3 W. FORT STREET
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 4 8 2 2 6 T E L E P H O N E : ( ~ I ~9)6 3 - 5 5 5 3
NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF LICENSE
DP-4/80 and DP-137/80 Consolidated
BOOKER T. GAULDEN (P 13878), 1730 Has le t t Road, East Lansing, M I 48823 by Order of t h e Michigan Supreme Court i s sued De- cember 2, 1982, denying app l i ca t ion f o r leave t o appeal t h e decis ion of t h e Attorney Disc ip l ine Board. The Attorney Disc ip l ine Board had dismissed Respondent's P e t i t i o n f o r Review and denied a motion f o r re- hearing.
(1) Revocation of l i c e n s e ; (2) Ef fec t ive January 9 , 1981 ( A s repor ted i n a p r i o r no t i ce of revocation pending appeal.)
The hear ing panel found t h a t : Respondent d i d undertake t h e r ep resen ta t ion of c l i e n t s during a per iod when h i s l i c e n s e was sus- pended by p r i o r d i s c i p l i n a r y o rde r s , f a i l e d t o n o t i f y h i s c l i e n t s of h i s l e g a l i n a b i l i t y t o r ep resen t them, appeared i n cour t on s e v e r a l occasions cont rary t o t h e order of suspension, received s u b s t a n t i a l f ees f o r which no s e r v i c e s were rendered, neg lec ted , c e r t a i n Soc ia l Secur i ty c l i e n t mat ter , f i l e d f a l s e r e p l i e s t o t h e Grievance Administrator 's Request f o r Inves t iga t ion , neglected a c e r t a i n cr iminal mat ter a f t e r r e c e i p t of f e e s and sought t o deceive no t only c l i e n t s b u t t h e hearing panel i n v io la- t i o n of Canons I, 2 , 3, and 6 of t h e Code of Profess ional Responsib i l i ty and GCR 1963, 953. The panel considered th ree p r i o r suspensions of 120 and 180 days i n 1979 and 2 years i n 1980. The panel found no m i t - i g a t i n g f a c t o r s o r circumstances. Costs were assessed i n t h e amount of $642.60. An appeal was f i l e d with t h e Attorney Disc ip l ine Board b u t was discussed by t h e Board upon Respondent's f a i l u r e t o appear a t the scheduled Review Hearing.
J N F . General C , ~ ~ > a d l
Att3rney Discipline Board