The Indiana Supreme Court has suspended the license of a Michigan lawyer whose misconduct included sending an Indiana accident victim a letter of solicitation without the words "advertising material" and without filing the letter with the state disciplinary commission. The Court found that he had "engaged in attorney misconduct that, standing alone, would warrant a sanction in the lowest range," but that his conduct during the disciplinary process was so substantially aggravating that it warranted suspending him from the practice of law for 180 days without automatic reinstatement. For reinstatement, he must, among other things, "demonstrate that his attitude towards the misconduct for which he is being disciplined is one of genuine remorse" and that he "has a proper understanding of and attitude towards the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will conduct himself in conformity with such standards."
What exactly did he do that was so aggravating, and why the conditions upon reinstatement?
The Court's order highlighted the following opinions expressed by the attorney about the Commission and the process during the course of the proceedings:
- The Indiana attorney discipline system? "A hideous aberration of justice"
- The Commission's staff attorney? "A self-image of pompous arrogance"
- The Commission's hearing officer? "Rubber stamp"
- The Commission's former executive secretary? "A first-class ass"
- The Commission itself? "Soft and lazy"
- The disciplinary process? "A modern day version of the Star Chamber, a Salem witch hunt, or a Spanish Inquisition"
- The disciplinary rules? "Frivolous and antiquated," "rules of behavior conceived over cigars and brandy...during the late Victorian Era by a group of self-impressed lawyers"
The Court found the lawyer to be "totally non-repentant." According to the opinion, the lawyer said he would take the same actions again. He also expressed a higher opinion of Michigan's disciplinary rules. "I will be thankful that Michigan does not attempt to impose frivolous and antiquated regulatory restrictions upon its licensed attorneys . . . ." (Note: Michigan's Supreme Court has published for comment a rule change concerning lawyer advertising. The proposed rule and comments can be found here (under ADM 2002-24). Here's a PDF of the proposed order itself, and a PDF of the State Bar's Professional Ethics committee's comment.
The order of suspension is here. (PDF)
Update: the MIchigan attorney's response is here. (PDF)
