Pro Se Representation Before the USPTO OED: A Risky Gamble

The USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) handles investigations and disciplinary proceedings against attorneys and other practitioners who engage in misconduct before the USPTO. Navigating these complex proceedings without legal representation can be a daunting and perilous task.  We have covered previously various best practices regarding what to do if you find yourself with an OED Grievance or investigation.  However, many practitioners still find themselves without the desire or ability to retain counsel (Top Tip: Most malpractice insurance carriers require reporting of an OED grievance and will often cover the defense costs).

The Dangers of Pro Se Representation

Representing yourself before OED is akin to representing yourself in court. The stakes are high, and the consequences of a misstep can be severe–including exclusion or suspension–both from the USPTO, as well as reciprocal actions by various state bars. Here are some of the risks involved:

  • Lack of Knowledge: OED’s rules, procedures, and evidentiary standards are complex. Without a deep understanding of these intricacies, you may inadvertently make errors that could harm your case.
  • Ineffective Advocacy: Attorneys are trained to build compelling arguments, cross-examine witnesses, and present evidence effectively. Pro se litigants often struggle to match the skill level of experienced legal counsel.
  • Emotional Toll: Ethics investigations and disciplinary proceedings can be emotionally draining. Having an experienced OED practitioner handle the legal complexities can alleviate some of the stress and burden–and to drive the emotion out of any responses.
  • Severe Penalties: OED has the authority to impose severe penalties, including suspension or disbarment. A successful defense is crucial to protecting your professional reputation and livelihood.

Comparing Outcomes & Framing Responses

As we discussed in a prior post, the duty to cooperate is paramount, and many practitioners are sanctioned for both false statements and failing to cooperate.  As we discussed in the Haffner case, what could likely have been a matter closed with a warning letter received the harsh sanction of a 60-day suspension–likely all because of the respondent’s failure to fully cooperate with OED.  Counsel provides a level of insulation–from being a sounding board to actually providing concrete advice regarding how to position facts– a key element to successfully presenting a full and complete response to OED.

A few examples:

  • Rather than calling a grievant a load of expletives, OED-experienced counsel will likely hone in on important and relevant facts, such as the fact that the grievant is abusing the OED process to gain an advantage in a civil proceeding.
  • Instead of categorically denying OED’s accusations without doing any research, OED-experienced counsel will likely research the allegations, ask you for proof to the contrary, and then provide a wholesome response addressing what the respondent knows for sure, versus what is on information and belief.
  • A pro se respondent might explain something by stating it did not occur, while OED-experienced counsel might provide further color–explaining the situation that may have caused the lapse.

While it is difficult to predict what will happen in an OED investigation, what is clear to me is that many practitioners do not take the matter seriously until formal charges are filed against them.  By such time, the damage is done–the grace of OED is no longer present because they have likely made up their mind that the practitioner is untruthful or committed misconduct because they failed to provide detailed information.

While many practitioners will retort that they did nothing wrong, and that the grievance against them is baseless, sometimes skeletons may be behind another door.  Take, for example, the case of a baseless former client grievance.  While the allegations may be improper, OED often will ask questions about the fees paid (and where they were deposited).  Failing to put the funds received in advance but not yet earned in a trust account might cause the OED to still proceed to discipline.  As such, identifying issues and taking them on from the start is often an ideal way to combat potential problems.

The Role of Experienced Counsel

Law firms specializing in OED matters, such as McCabe & Ali, LLP, bring a unique set of skills and resources to bear:

  • Deep Knowledge of OED Rules and Procedures: Experienced attorneys understand the intricacies of OED proceedings and can navigate complex legal issues.
  • Investigation and Evidence Gathering: Attorneys can conduct thorough investigations, gather relevant evidence, and develop effective strategies for presenting it.
  • Negotiation and Settlement: In many cases, experienced counsel can negotiate favorable settlements to avoid the time and expense of a full-blown hearing.
  • Litigation Experience: If a hearing is necessary, skilled attorneys can effectively cross-examine witnesses, present compelling arguments, and advocate for their clients’ interests.
  • Emotional Support: Attorneys can provide emotional support and guidance throughout the OED process, helping clients to cope with the stress and uncertainty.

Conclusion

If you are facing an ethics investigation or disciplinary proceeding before the USPTO OED, it is imperative to seek the guidance of an experienced attorney.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top