NY patent attorney disciplined for high fees
Law.com has the following text in a Sept. 1, 2006 article by Michael Scholl:
The Appellate Division, Second Department, last week unanimously voted to confirm a special referee's report that had sustained two counts of professional misconduct against Kroll.
The court found in Matter of Michael I. Knoll, 2005-00782, that Kroll violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by charging excessive fees for preparing patent applications.
A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office investigation into Kroll's fees was begun in 2000 after one of his clients, Lynn Svevad, complained to the office. Svevad had been seeking to patent a computer software program that allows users to have simulated conversations with deceased relatives.
The Appellate Division said the investigation found that the average fee charged in the New York City area for preparation of an application was $700. [IPBiz: ?!?] It also found that Kroll charged and collected $11,500 for the same service from Svevad.
There was an issue of forged "power of attorney" forms. From the law.com article:
The second count alleged that Kroll engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by signing the names of his clients to several power of attorney forms.
A patent applicant must sign a power of attorney form to authorize a patent lawyer to act on the applicant's behalf with respect to the application. No option is provided to allow the attorney to sign the form in place of the client.
Upon receipt of her file from Kroll, Svevad found that it contained a power of attorney form with a signature in her name that was not hers. Kroll admitted he signed Svevad's name and that he had signed the names of other clients to the same form in the past.
The article also noted:
In a Feb. 24, 2004, order, the patent office suspended Kroll from practice before the office for three years. But it stayed the suspension based on his compliance with certain stipulations, including his notification of the 75 identified clients that they were overcharged and that they would receive a refund of one-half of the attorney's fees collected. The refunds totaled about $350,000.
Part of the news here is that the Aug. 22 appellate panel decision included "public censure."
The Appellate Division, Second Department, last week unanimously voted to confirm a special referee's report that had sustained two counts of professional misconduct against Kroll.
The court found in Matter of Michael I. Knoll, 2005-00782, that Kroll violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by charging excessive fees for preparing patent applications.
A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office investigation into Kroll's fees was begun in 2000 after one of his clients, Lynn Svevad, complained to the office. Svevad had been seeking to patent a computer software program that allows users to have simulated conversations with deceased relatives.
The Appellate Division said the investigation found that the average fee charged in the New York City area for preparation of an application was $700. [IPBiz: ?!?] It also found that Kroll charged and collected $11,500 for the same service from Svevad.
There was an issue of forged "power of attorney" forms. From the law.com article:
The second count alleged that Kroll engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by signing the names of his clients to several power of attorney forms.
A patent applicant must sign a power of attorney form to authorize a patent lawyer to act on the applicant's behalf with respect to the application. No option is provided to allow the attorney to sign the form in place of the client.
Upon receipt of her file from Kroll, Svevad found that it contained a power of attorney form with a signature in her name that was not hers. Kroll admitted he signed Svevad's name and that he had signed the names of other clients to the same form in the past.
The article also noted:
In a Feb. 24, 2004, order, the patent office suspended Kroll from practice before the office for three years. But it stayed the suspension based on his compliance with certain stipulations, including his notification of the 75 identified clients that they were overcharged and that they would receive a refund of one-half of the attorney's fees collected. The refunds totaled about $350,000.
Part of the news here is that the Aug. 22 appellate panel decision included "public censure."
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 6:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home