SOAR0 MEMBCRS FREDERICK G. BUESSER. JR. JOHN L. COT^. CHAIRPERSO(. MSGR CLEMENT n. nERN OAVlO EAUER LEWIS. SECRETARY F R A N I J. MCDEVITT. 0.0. WILL IAM G. REAHON
LYNN H. SHECTER. V I C E - C H A I R P E R S O N
JOHN F. X. DwAtnY COUNSE L/ADMINISTRATOR
SUITE I 2 6 0 333 W FORT STREET OETROIT. M I C ~ I G A N4 8 2 2 6
TELEPHONE: 13131 9 6 3 - 5 5 5 1
Th is i s t o i n f o rm t he Courts o f the S ta te of Michigan of t h e f o l l o w i n g Order of D i s c i p l i n e :
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION F i l e No. 36740-A RONALD R. KUBIK ,?26557), 15128 Plymouth Road, D e t r o i t , M I 48227, by A t to rney D i s c i p l i n e Board Wayne C i r c u i t Hearing Panel #20. (1 ) Suspension; (2 ) For a p e r i o d o f s i x months; ( 3 ) E f f e c t i v e December 20, 1979.
The d i s c i p l i n e i n t h i s case was p rev i ous l y announced by an'-+ I n t e r i m Not i ce o f Suspension pending t h e Grievance Adm in i s t r a t o r ' s appeal o f t h e Hearing Panel dec i s i on o f suspension of s i x months.
I
The Formal Complaint charged t h a t Respondent entered a p l ea o f g u i l t y t o t h e charges o f d e l i v e r y o f he ro in and d e l i v e r y o f cocaine i n March, 1979, and was sentenced on A p r i l 4, 1979, t o four yea rs ' p roba t ion and c o u r t cos ts o f $400, s a i d c r im ina l ac ts being f e l on i es
punishable by imprisonment f o r a p e r i o d o f 20 years. The D i s c i p l i n a r y Complaint charged v i o l a t i o n s o f GCR 953 (1-5) and 969 and Canon 1 of
t he Code o f P ro fess iona l Respons ib i l i t y , t o w i t :
DR 1-102 (A) ( 1 ) (3-6) .
The Hearing Panel determined t h a t Respondent was g u i l t y of profess ional misconduct i n v i o l a t i o n o f GCR 953 and 969, as we l l as Canon 1, DR 1-102 (3 ) ( 6 ) . The Panel considered t h a t Respondent, fo1 low ing t he c r i m i n a l conv ic t ions , had v o l u n t a r i l y withdrawn from the p r a c t i c e o f law and has undergone i n t ens i ve therapy f o r drug add ic t ion . The Panel a l s o considered a r e p o r t o f t he Probat ion Depart-
ment which was f avo rab le t o the Respondent and conf i rmed t h a t Respondent was success fu l l y pursu ing a program o f therapy f o r drug add i c t i on which apparent ly began a t age t h i r t e e n f o r Respondent. The record a l s o conta ins i n f o rma t i on t o the e f f e c t t h a t Respondent was no t a drug dea le r
and d i d no t pe r sona l l y p r o f i t f rom t h e circumstances lead ing t o h i s a r r e s t and t h a t Respondent graduated magna cum laude from law school a t t h e age o f 21 a f t e r undergoing an acce le ra ted grammar school and undergraduate educat ion. The record a l s o conta ins t he r e p o r t of Respondent's psycho therap is t who r e p o r t s excel 1e n t progress i n a1 1 ca tegor ies f o r t h e former substance abuser. The A t to rney D i s c i p l i n e
Board, upon t h e P e t i t i o n f o r Review o f t h e Grievance Admin is t ra to r , a f f i r m e d t h e dec i s i on o f t he Hearing Panel. The Supreme Court denied t h e Grievance Adm in i s t r a t o r ' s Appl i c a t i o n f o r Leave t o Appeal.
David Baker Lewis , Secretary ATTORNEY DISCI P L IN E BOARD
October 21, 1980.
'