Trusts and Estates
Decedent's Estate Litigation
Mental Health Law
Welcomes Estate &
Mental Health Law Attorney
18 years of ERISA disability
Representing individuals and
professionals in all phases of
their claim, including Federal
EMAIL: email@example.com WEB: www.scottdavispc.com
Scott E. Davis, P.C.
8360 E. Raintree Drive, Suite 140
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(602) 482-4300 • (800) 588-1710
Disability Insurance Lawyer
Mr. McDowell did not timely inform his client
of the dismissal and did not otherwise sufficiently
communicate with his client. Mr. McDowell
failed to completely respond to the State Bar’s
requests for information.
Aggravating factors: bad faith obstruction of
the disciplinary process by intentionally failing to
comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary
agency, and substantial experience in the practice
Mitigating factors: absence of prior disciplinary record, absence of dishonest or selfish motive,
and personal or emotional problems.
Mr. McDowell violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.C T.,
ERs 1. 2, 1. 3, 1. 4, 3. 2, 8. 1(b), and 8. 4(d); and
Rule 54(d), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
GOURI G. NAIR
Bar No. 024856; File No. 16-1072
PDJ No. 2016-9123
By judgment and order dated April 12, 2017, the
presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which Gouri G.
Nair, Phoenix, was suspended for 90 days and
placed on probation for two years with the State
Bar’s Law Office Management Assistance Program (LOMAP) if she returns to Arizona to practice law. She also was assessed the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceeding totaling
Ms. Nair was retained by her client to file a
non-provisional patent application with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in
March 2011. She led her client to believe she
filed the application in August 2011 but failed to
actually do so until August 2012. Her client was
unaware that the application was filed more than
a year later than expected.
In a March 2013 “Office Action” the USPTO
informed Nair that it rejected parts of the application and that a response was required by June 26,
2013. Nair failed to inform her client of this
development until a very short time before the
deadline, then charged the client an additional
$3,500 to prepare and file a timely response.
On Feb. 1, 2016, the USPTO issued another
Office Action denying the patent application, noting that someone else filed art for a similar invention in January 2012. If Nair had filed the client’s
application in August 2011 instead of 2012, the
USPTO would have considered her client’s artwork as “prior art,” thereby enhancing the likelihood that it would accept the client’s application.
After the client hired a different attorney and
spent more money to prove that her invention
was conceived and reduced to practice prior to the
other applicant’s invention, the USPTO issued a
patent to the client.
Ms. Nair did not respond to the State Bar’s requests for information during its screening investigation but did retain counsel and participate in
the formal proceedings.
Aggravating factors: prior disciplinary offenses, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and
substantial experience in the practice of law.