Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

BOARD MEMBERS:

JOHN L. COTE. CHAIRPERSON MSGR. CLEMENT H . KERN DAVID BAKER LEWIS. SECRETARY FRANK J. MCDEVITT. D.O. WILLIAM G. REAMON LYNN H. SHECTER. VICE-CHAIRPERSON

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JOHN F. X. DWAIHY

COUNSEL~ADMINSI TRATOR SUITE 1260 333 W. FORT STREET DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226

TELEPHONE: (313) 963-5553

T h i s is t o inform the Courts of the State of Michigan of the following f inal Order of Discipl ine:

ORDER OF DISBARMENT &25'9' 0s-/q

PATRICK A. HECK (PI 481 1) , 5447 Map1 e , Dearborn, Michigan 481 26, by Wayne County Hearing Panel #2, e f fec t ive May 8, 1979. Pet i t ion f o r Review dismissed by the Attorney Discipline Board. Respondent was charged i n a three count Complaint with: neglect of a legal matter, f a i l u r e t o carry out a contract of employment, neglect of a second matter, a c i v i l su i t , resul t ing i n dismissal of said s u i t and misrepresentations regarding the progress of said s u i t ; f a i l u r e t o i n i t i a t e prosecution on behalf oT a thllxd c l i e n t seri.ously injured in an accident resul t ing i n a t o l l i n g of the s t a t u t e of l imitations barring the c l i e n t ' s claim, f a i l u r e t o timely f i l e the tax returns of said c l i en t resul t ing i n penal t ies and neglect of an additional c iv i l action undertaken on behalf of said c l i e n t . Respondent was further charged with f a i lu re t o answer the Grievance Administrator's Request for Inves- t igat ion and the Formal Complaint. The panel concluded t h a t Respondent did violate SCR 15.2 (7) and 16.11 in f a i l ing t o answer the Request f o r Investigation and Formal Complaint. The panel concluded t h a t the other allegations i n the complaint were proven and tha t Respondent's conduct constituted violat ions of Canon 1 , DR1-102 ( A ) (4) ( 6 ) , Canon 6, DR6-101 ( A ) (3) , Canon 7 , DR 7-101 (A ) (1 ) (2) (3) and SCR 15.2 (1 ) (2) (3) (4) and (7) .

David Baker Lewis, Secretary Attorney Discipl i ne Board

r- i

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.