THE ETHICS REPORTER

September 25, 2025

Patent Attorney Michael Ries Publicly Reprimanded by USPTO

Patent Attorney Michael Ries Publicly Reprimanded by USPTO

For attorneys, maintaining a license to practice law requires more than just passing an exam. It demands a steadfast commitment to professional ethics and competence. The case of Michael John Ries, a registered patent attorney, demonstrates how a failure to meet these standards in one jurisdiction can have far-reaching consequences, extending to a national level of discipline from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The Original Sin: Misconduct in Arizona

The disciplinary proceedings against Ries began with the Supreme Court of Arizona. A Presiding Disciplinary Judge found that Ries had violated several of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. The findings of his misconduct were not isolated incidents but a pattern of professional failure that included:

  • Lack of Diligence: Ries failed to perform the legal services he was hired to provide, including not communicating with his clients about the status of their cases.
  • Poor Communication: He didn’t communicate effectively with his clients, a breach of the fundamental duty to keep clients informed about their legal matters.
  • Conflict of Interest: He was found to have a conflict of interest that he failed to get informed consent for from his client.
  • Unreasonable Fees: He had a dispute regarding his fees, which contributed to the disciplinary action.

These violations led to a significant punishment from the Arizona Supreme Court: a public reprimand and orders to pay $3,500 in restitution to his client and $1,200 in disciplinary costs.

The USPTO’s Role: Reciprocal Discipline

Because Michael Ries was a registered patent attorney, his misconduct wasn’t just a state-level issue. The USPTO, which regulates those who practice before it, also has the power to discipline its registered practitioners.

The USPTO’s system of reciprocal discipline allows it to mirror the actions of a state bar. Under this system, when a state issues a public sanction against an attorney, the USPTO can impose an identical or similar punishment. This process ensures that an attorney who has been disciplined in a state cannot continue to practice before the USPTO with a clean slate.

In Ries’s case, the USPTO filed a notice of reciprocal discipline based on the Arizona ruling. Ries failed to respond to the notice, which led to a final order being issued. The USPTO publicly reprimanded him, making his professional misconduct a matter of public record at the national level.

Conclusion: A Public Warning

The case of Michael Ries serves as a vital reminder of the strict ethical standards for intellectual property professionals. His public reprimand from both the Arizona Supreme Court and the USPTO highlights the legal system’s interconnectedness and its commitment to holding attorneys accountable. This outcome not only punishes the individual but also serves as a public warning, affirming that professionalism, diligence, and ethical conduct are non-negotiable for all who practice law, especially in a specialized field like patent law where the stakes are often high.

Independent Journalism Needs You

You just read something most publications won't touch. We investigate judges who shouldn't be on the bench, attorneys who prey on clients, and a legal system that too often protects itself instead of the public. We do it openly, aggressively, and without apology.

We don't have a paywall. We don't take money from law firms, bar associations, or corporate advertisers who might prefer we stay quiet. Every piece of reporting on this site — every judge exposed, every disbarment documented, every reversal analyzed — was made possible entirely by readers like you.

If you read us regularly — if this work has ever made you angry, informed you, or helped you — we humbly ask you to support us today. It takes less than a minute. Even $1 goes directly toward keeping this reporting alive. Without it, we cannot continue.

Reader Supported

This journalism is free because readers like you make it possible.

We don't have corporate advertisers. We don't take money from law firms. Every investigation you read here is funded entirely by readers. Even $1 keeps us going.

Join 47 readers who donated this month

47% toward our monthly goal of 100 supporters

Secure checkout via Stripe. Cancel your monthly gift anytime.

The Ethics Reporter is independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate backers. Your support is everything.

← Back to all articles