In re Gray

• Decision Date: 25 July 2019
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-433
• Citation: 126 N.E.3d 805 (Mem)
• Parties: In the MATTER OF: Robert Wayne GRAY, Respondent
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

126 N.E.3d 805 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF: Robert Wayne GRAY, Respondent

Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-433

Supreme Court of Indiana.

FILED July 25, 2019

Published Order Approving Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline

Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23 (12.1)(b), the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a "Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline" stipulating agreed facts and proposed discipline as summarized below.

Stipulated Facts: At relevant times, Respondent was the sole owner and president of his law firm, The Gray Law Group ("TGLG"), and was responsible for the supervision of all TGLG attorneys and employees. TGLG represented two companies (collectively, "USPC") that worked with inventors to develop, protect, and market inventions.

Pursuant to TGLG's contract with USPC, TGLG would perform relevant prior art searches on behalf of USPC's inventor clients and, if able, would draft and file a provisional patent application on behalf of the inventor client. The inventor clients were charged separate fees by USPC for each step. TGLG did not enter into separate representation agreements with these clients. The inventor clients interacted primarily with USPC during this process and were not told of the limitations on representation or how fees would be shared between USPC and TGLG. TGLG did not obtain the inventor clients' written informed consent to TGLG's simultaneous representation of, and ongoing business relationship with, USPC. TGLG also did not discuss with the inventor clients the relative benefits or drawbacks of a provisional patent application in comparison to available alternatives, such as filing a non-provisional application.

In December 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") filed a disciplinary complaint against Respondent based on his referral arrangements with USPC. That complaint resulted in Respondent's consensual exclusion from practice before the USPTO without an admission of misconduct.

Violations: The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct:

1.2(a): Failing to consult with a client about the objectives of representation.

1.2(c): Failing to obtain a client's informed consent to limit the scope of representation.

1.4(a)(1): Failing to promptly inform a client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent is required.

1.4(a)(2): Failing to reasonably consult with a client about the means by which the client's

...