b 3 A R D MEMBERS r .REDERICK G . B u E S S E R . J R - J O H N L . COT^. C H A I R P E R S O N M S G R . CLEMENT H . K E R N . D A V I D B A K E R L E W I S ,S E C R E T A R Y F R A N K J . M C D E V I T T , D.0-
W I L L I A M G. R E A M O N L Y N N H . S H E C T E R , V I C E - C H A IR P E R S O N
J O H N F. X. DWAIHY C O U N S E L / A D M I N I S T R A T O R
S U I T E 1 2 6 0 3 3 3 W. F O R T S T R E E T
D E T R O I T , MICHIGAN 48226 T E L E P H O N E : 131 3 ) 9 6 3 - 5 5 5 3
T h i s i s t o inform t h e Courts of the S t a t e of Michigan of t he following f i n a l Order of Discipl ine:
(REVISED) NOTICE OF SUSPENSION File No. 3 5 5 8 8 - A BOOKER T. G A U L D E N (PI 3878), 51 5 S. Chestnut, Lansing, Michigan 48910, f o r a period of 180 days by t he Seventh Congressional D i s t r i c t Hearing Pane1 #3 of t h e Attorney Discipl ine Board. The sus- pension was made e f f e c t i v e June 27, 1x73 by Order of t h e Michigan
B -
Supreme Court s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e Board's Stay of Discipl ine and re- i n s t a t i ng t he hear ing panel d i s c i p l i n e o rder , but allowing Respondent t o properly renew a I*lotion t o Se t Aside Default. Respondent's renewed Motion t o S e t Aside Default was denied by the Board's Order f i l e d August 7 , 1979.
Respondent was charged i n a f i v e count Complaint w i t h : f a i l u r e t o proper ly convey t i t l e in c e r t a i n real property; submission of fa1 s e s ta tements i n response t o t h e Grievance Admini s t r a t o r ' s Request f o r I nves t i ga t i on ; f a i l u r e t o t imely f i l e a Complaint f o r Divorce a f t e r r e c e i p t of a l ega l f ee ; a f f i x ing t he c l i e n t ' s s i gna tu re t o a divorce complaint without au thor iza t ion and personal no ta r iza t ion
of sa id purported s i gna tu re ; neglect of a legal mat ter and neglect o r refusal t o adv ise t h e c l i e n t of t he s t a t u s of s a id mat ter de sp i t e repeated i n q u i r i e s , and f a i l u r e t o re tu rn the l ega l f e e t o s a i d c l i e n t as promised. Vio la t ions o f t h e following d i s c i p l i n a r y ru l e s were al leged i n t h e Complaint: Canon I , DR 6-101 (A) (1 -3) , Canon VII,
)
DR 7-101 ( A ) (2-3) , former Supreme Court Rule 15.2 (1 -4) and (6) , Canon I , DR 1-102 (A) (4 -6) , Canon VII, DR 7-102 was a l s o charged with v i o l a t i o n of MCLA 750.249.
( A ) (5-6) .
Respondent
Two counts involving f a i l u r e t o t imely f i l e s a i d Divorce Complaint ,<an d- t h e . s ign$ng .of t h e c l i e n t ' s name and no t a r i za t i on thereof were dismissed without pre judice upon Motion of Counsel f o r the Grievance Adminis t ra tor . The Panel made a f ind ing o f f a i l u r e t o ca r ry ou t an employment c o n t r a c t , neglect and r e s u l t i n g prejudice o r damage t o t h e c l i e n t ; however, t h e r e was no f ind ing t h a t Respondent undertook a mat te r which he knew o r should have known he was not competent t o handle and no f ind ing of inadequate preparat ion a s alleged. The Panel a l s o found misconduct involving dishonesty , f raud,
-\ < +
y
d e c e i t o r misrepresenta t ion and neglect of another c l i e n t mat ter . Addi t ional ly , t he Panel found v io la t ions of former Supreme Court Rul e 15.2 (1- 4 ) . A1 though evidence was taken, a Defaul t had been entered f o r f a i l u r e t o t imely answer t he Formal Complaint.
August 30, 1979
APPROVED ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOAm
David Baker Lewis, Secretary