Although Mr. Swyers denied engaging in any wrongdoing, his exclusion on consent comes with a significant caveat: if he ever seeks reinstatement to practice again before the USPTO (which he cannot do for at least five years), the OED Director will conclusively presume for purposes of considering his reinstatement petition both: (1) the allegations in the disciplinary complaint are true; and (2) Mr. Swyers could not have defeated those allegations.
Read comments and post your comment here.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2017.
I'd always wanted to go over [to PTO in Alexandria] and sit in on one of his TTAB oral arguments but never got around to it; missed my chance now, huh?
ReplyDeleteYou think he actually requested oral arguments? So I suppose that the likelihood of Swyers being admitted in 5 years if he requests reinstatement then is less than 50% (or less than 10%)because of the presumptions he is forced to accept.
ReplyDeleteDid I miss something? I was waiting for the evidence about his clients being mistreated or not receiving competent representation.
ReplyDeleteI have taken over two clients from him - they had no idea who he was - they never dealt with him - his staff have no idea what they are talking about - let them file completely generic marks with no warning - all they cared about was getting credit card info. That's several ethical violations right there.
ReplyDeleteWho is next? Raj Abhyanker?
ReplyDeleteRaj should be next.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I had a cancellation against him and whenever it came to discovery responses, received assorted excuses and requests for extensions. In the two years the action was pending, I dealt with his staff more than him (885-12%), which often made me wonder if he was in the office or on the beach in NC surfcasting. However, the few times we talked, he was very knowledgeable and considerate and always open to settlement.
ReplyDeleteI had a opposition proceeding against Swyers. He delayed everything every step of the way. Discovery was a joke. When I first spoke to him, he hadn't even looked at the case and his client's claims or mine. His staff would just file templates for him. I think the only thing he may have actually written was his final brief. They would sometimes get the proceeding numbers wrong, they deny and claim any discovery request as overly broad and burdensome as an automatic answer. He would outright lie and tell the interlocutory attorney papers were never served to him. His ethics were horrible, I would try to settle, and he would drag it on and delay. I think to just keep billing his client. I'm glad he's banned to practice, and I'm surprised his clients have not filed a class action lawsuit against him. His only strategy was delay and deny, most of his few proceeding wins were by no-answer defaults.
ReplyDeleteI had a opposition proceeding against Swyers. He delayed everything every step of the way. Discovery was a joke. When I first spoke to him, he hadn't even looked at the case and his client's claims or mine. His staff would just file templates for him. I think the only thing he may have actually written was his final brief. They would sometimes get the proceeding numbers wrong, they deny and claim any discovery request as overly broad and burdensome as an automatic answer. He would outright lie and tell the interlocutory attorney papers were never served to him. His ethics were horrible, I would try to settle, and he would drag it on and delay. I think to just keep billing his client. I'm glad he's banned to practice, and I'm surprised his clients have not filed a class action lawsuit against him. His only strategy was delay and deny, most of his few proceeding wins were by no-answer defaults.
ReplyDelete