| Case Digest |
In this reciprocal discipline case, Respondent was found to have violated the following rules by clear and convincing evidence in handling clients’ patents pending before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office: 1) PTO Disciplinary Rule (DR) 10.23(a) and DR 10.23(b)(6) by filing a client’s draft patent application without making the client’s requested changes; DR 10.77(c) by delay in determining which version of the patent application had actively been filed with the PTO, thereby neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him; DR 10.112(c)(4), DR 10.23(b)(6), and DR102.3(a) by failing to refund an unearned fee of $500 to a client; and DR 10.112(c)(4) and DR 10.23(b)(6) by failing to return his client’s disclosure material. Respondent disciplinary record consisted of an Informal Admonition with conditions which was imposed on April 11, 2006.
The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office suspended Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for seven months with three months to be stayed if Respondent took and passed the State Bar Examination section on Professional Responsibility and enrolled in and completed a state or local bar association course regarding the management of a sole practitioner office.
Respondent filed an appeal of his suspension to the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, which affirmed his suspension. Respondent then filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal District, which affirmed the U.S. District Court’s decision without issuing an opinion.
|
