On Friday, October 28, 2022, the Attorney Disciplinary Board of the State of Michigan issued a Notice of Disbarment and Restitution relating to the charges for attorney discipline against Chicago attorney James M. Harris for professional misconduct as charged in a two-count formal complaint alleging violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The case was brought by the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. Case #22-34-GA.
The charges cited Harris’s violations of MRPC 1.1(a) handling a legal matter the lawyer was not competent to handle; MRPC 1.1(c) neglecting a client’s legal matter; MRPC 1.3 failure to act with reasonable negligence and promptness in representing a client; MRPC 1.4(a) failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and failure to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; MRPC 1.16(d) failure to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation, including a failure to refund any advance payment of fee that has not been earned; MRPC 2.1 failure to give candid advice to a client; MRPC 5.5(a) engaging in the unauthorized practice of law before the USPTO; MRPC 7.1(b) creating an unjustified expectation about the results the lawyer can achieve; MRPC 8.1(a)(2) engaging in conduct that violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct; and MRPC 8.4(b) engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
According to the filing:
“After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the panel found, by default, that respondent committed professional misconduct as charged in a two-count formal complaint. As alleged in Count One, the panel found that respondent had been unauthorized to practice law before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) since 1990, yet knowingly and wrongfully failed to disclose that fact to his client when he was engaged to apply for a patent at the USPTO. After the USPTO rejected the patent application, respondent’s client demanded that respondent return the fee paid to him. Respondent refused; instead, he re-filed the patent application and listed his client as the filing party in proper. Respondent’s client never procured the patent or received a refund from respondent. As alleged in Count Two, the panel found that respondent failed to answer a Grievance Administrator’s Request for Investigation.
As to Count Two, the panel found that respondent failed to knowingly answer a request for investigation or demand for information in conformity with MCR 9.113(A)-(B)(2), in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MRPC 8.1(a)(2); and engaged in conduct that violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MCR 9.104(4).
Respondent was also found to have violated MCR 9.104(1)-(3) and MRPC 8.4(c), as charged in both counts of the formal complaint.”
The Notice of Disbarment and Restitution reads:
“James M. Harris, P24939, Chicago, Illinois by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #13
Disbarment, Effective October 26, 2022
The panel ordered that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and that he pay restitution in the total amount of $9,695.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,727.81.”
Mr. James M. Harris has been licensed in Michigan.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
