*1 Miсh STATE BAR GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATORv GILLIS (Calendar 14). Argued Docket No. 58940. November No. February post, Rehearing p Decided 1978. denied 966. Philip suspended practice A. Gillis was from the of law for 60 days by the Bar after State Grievance Board he was convicted Respon- of willful failure to file a Federal income tax return. appeals. dent Held: provides attorney 1. The Grievance Board Rule which that an felony, convicted of a of a crime turpitude for one or of a crime important of law has an expediting relieving function the State Bаr Grievance Ad- establishing
ministrator of the burden of actionable misconduct against attorney State Bar Rules an convicted aof require independent proof serious crime. The rule does not misconduct; fact of conviction alone establishеs the State Bar Grievance Administrator’s case. Disciplinary nonprofessional measures for misconduct evi- denced of failure income tax turpitude, whether or not the crime involves moral are neces- sary integrity legal profession. 60-day maintain of the A suspension is not excessive for conviction of willful failure to return, especially respondent file an income tax since the convicted, previously contendere, nolo same offense. respondent equal protection 3. The was not denied under the law because GCR 932.4 that an iswho judge guilty a shall deemed if convicted of felony. preclude The court rule does not the Judicial Tenure finding particular judge Commission from in a case that a willfully file an income tax return is of miscon- duct. Appeаls 4. The Sixth Circuit Court of affirmed the defend- ant’s the United States Court denied petition writ certiorari. Court is not This inclined to engage argued pro- in collateral review of the issues in those ceedings. Affirmed. v Gillis Opinion op the Court Levin, joined by on Justice dissented Justice Chief сase of the instant ground the circumstances that under profession would be obligation Court’s suggestion reprimand no there is served *2 repose trust continue to or the courts clients respondent. rules should The in the and confidence in the course of providе modified to professional activi- conduct outside of professional activities or longer to indicating can no be trusted that a ties appear in court warrants represent clients or Bar Griev- Rosenzweig, Counsel for State
Louis Administrator. ance and Carl persona, propria in Gillis, A.
Philip Ziemba respondent. for Gillis, A. is be- Philip Appellant, Per Curiam. the State Bar appeal on the Court
fore suspen- of a 60-day Board’s affirmance Grievance law, ordered by privilege of his sion hearing panel. сharged Administrator Grievance
The Mr. concluded hearing panel and the (3), 1-102(A), (1), subds 1, DR Canon violated Responsibility,1 Professional (6), the Code of 2(1)-2(5),2 Bar Griev and State Rule State Board Rule ance 16.17.3 part: DR 1-102 in "(A) not: A shall "(1) Disciplinary Rule. Violate a
"(3)
turpitude.
Engage
illegal
in
cоnduct
fitness to
omissions
concert with
occurred
and shall
"(6)
“Sec. 2. Grounds
"(1)
Conduct
Engage
Bar Rule 15
practice law.”
the course
grounds
any
a member
prejudicial
in
other
any
for
provides in
of an
other
person
Discipline
of the bar
attorney-client
conduct
proper
part:
persons,
in General. The
of this
administration
shall
relationship.
or not the act
adversely
State,
constitute misconduct
individually or in
following
reflects on
justice;
or omission
acts or
The State Bar Grievance Board affirmed hearing рanel suspending order Mr. Gillis for 60 him days assessing costs of $77.50.
Mr. Gillis’ 1975 conviction of jury willful failure to file an income tax a Federal misde meanor, served impetus as the for the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. "(2) exposes legal profession Conduct that or the courts to obloquy, contempt, reproach; censure or "(3) contrary ethics, justice, Conduct that honesty good morals; "(4) Conduct that violates the standards or rules of ethics or professional responsibility adopted Court of this from time to time State; "(5) Cоnduct that violates the criminal laws of this or other State or of the United States.” 3State Bar Grievance Board Rule 16.17 was renumbered 16.18 grievance between the time the administrator filed his formal com- plaint hearing panel report. time the filed its The rule prоvides: "Suspension; Any attorney Conviction of a Crime. *3 convicted of a felony, or convicted of a crime for a term year of one or or turpitude convicted of a crime moral or sentenced after a of nolo contendere connection with foregoing, may, upon sentence, such by conviction or thereupon the Board and he shall cease to law. The Board shall file and serve such order the same as set forth for other orders "Upon pardon may, upon the Board and a reversal of the shall, conviction the Board suspension. enter its order to vacate the Thereupon, person the name of the shall be returned to the roster of attorneys and at counselors law of this State. The Board shall file and serve such order discipline.” the same as set forth for orders of violated, The provides: statute 26 USC "Any person required pay any under this title to estimated tax or tax, required by by regulations or this title or authority made under (other thereof to make a required return than a return under author- ity willfully keep required by 6015), keep any records, of section information, supply any or who pay tax, such estimated tax or make such records, supply information, such or such at the time or times regulations, shall, law or penalties in addition to other law, рrovided by and, upon of a misdemeanor conviction thereof, $10,000, shall be imprisoned fined not more than not more year, both, together than 1 prosecution.” with the costs of The element apparently only "willfulness” in this crime involves knowledge the intentional was under a failure to file and the defendant that he legal obligation so; to do an“ intent to defraud the
government purpose or other similar bad or evil motive is not State Bar v Gillis Opinion op the Court hearing panel, Mr. Gillis contested Before nor the fact that Grievance his neither conviction permits his Rule 16.18 Board by imprisonment "punishable mitigation, Rather, in or more”.5 of one term moral involved no testified that he turpitude, unfairly obtained, occa and was personality problems mental and sioned certain prаctice adversely and law did not affect his which attempting presently correct. he is to which appellant board, reasserted these Before the following arguments added the three issues and presents appeal: us on he also (1) file a Whethеr conviction willful failure to disciplinary be a basis for tax return should attorney; against an
(2) attorneys are Whether Rule 16.18 denies judges equal protection law; not (3) Whether conviction was obtained unfairly.
I argument, principal Defendant’s argument, one his advanсed at oral attorney’s conviction of not involv that an a crime ability ing turpitude bear ethically wisely with the deal not be a basis for therefore should (CA 1975), Pohlman, necessary. 522 F2d 974 United States (CA McCorkle, (1976); 511 F2d 482 United States v *4 Rosenfield, 1975), den, (1975); 469 States v cert United (CA 3, 1972), 932 411 US F2d 598 5 fact, prison one-year as well to a term In Mr. Gillis was sentenced However, $5,000 three months of all but first as a custody fine. that and it further ordered sentence were period unsupervised probation two-year follow service of would of custody sentence. three-month 402 Mich 286 оp the Court against the attorney. Because defendant’s turpitude,6 involve moral grievance because the administrator chose to rely on the solely fact of the conviction without intro ducing evidence surrounding aggravating circumstances, defendаnt maintains that his sus pension improper.
In both State Bar Grievance Administrator
Lewis,
(1973) (Lewis
668;
389 Mich
In Lewis
we
observed
the rule has "an
important
expediting function”
in relieving "the
of establishing
administrator
burden
action-
2(5),
able misconduct under Rule
against an
convicted
of a serious crime”. 389 Mich
We said
the use of the rule "does not
require independent
misconduct;
proof
the fact
of conviction alone establishes
the administrator’s
case”.
Lewis II answers Mr. Gillis’ contention that his 60-day is too severe. There we ruled that a three-month suspension was not excessive for conviсtion of willful failure to file income also, tax note, return. We appel- this is not lant’s first convicted, violation. was previously He contendere, nolo failing of willfully tax income returns for the years and 1958.
The foremost concern of
protection
Rule 16.18 is
Howеver,
the public.7
important
ancillary con-
4, supra.
See footnotee
Trombly,
7 In the Matter of
377, 382;
398 Mich
II argues equal that he was denied Appellant also the law the court rules because protection is a lawyer treatment who provide different not a Mr. Gillis judge. and a judge 16.18 for of that Rule *6 the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a "judge should respect and law” observe the and GCR 932.4(d) provides that conduct in violation of that code constitute in "may office” or warranting other сonduct
Ill final Appellant’s contention his convic- because, tion first, was obtained he unfairly the probably victim of discriminatory prosecution and, because of an attorney second, his status as he process was denied due in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals because of that Court’s affirm- ance of his conviction with a summary opinion. argued
Appellant these and other issues before the Federal appellate courts. The Sixth Circuit Appeals Court of affirmed his conviction and the United States Court рetition denied his Gillis, certiorari. United States v writ (CA 6, 1976), F2d 330
We are not inclined engage in collateral review proceedings. those
IV conclusion, In we are satisfied that the record supports the panel’s findings con- 2(5) viction 16.18, violated Rules and and that § the violatiоns warranted imposed. We do not reach the propriety Bar v Kavanagh, Dissenting Opinion C. J. also Mr. Gillis’ finding panel’s (3), (1), 1-102(A), DR subds violations constituted 2(1)-2(4). (6) Rule and and Costs to board. Affirmed. Ryan, Fitzgerald, and Coleman,
Williams, Jr., JJ., Moody, concurred. Blair believe We do not (dissenting). J.C. the prac- days of 60 penalty circumstances warranted of law is tice profession obligation this case. Our reprimand. aby as well served be would comment: previous a reiterate We we justified, deciding "In lawyer a carefully between what distinguish should does The private сitizen. what he does as a a as required of properly be highest can very standards conduct, when he is not but professional his must private conduct lawyer, to act as purporting that he or indicate scandalous publicly it and act for clients before trusted to advise cannot *7 discipline.” State Bar Grievance public justifies 157, 164; Grossman, 390 Mich Administrator J.).1 (1973) (Dissent T. G. NW2d the courts that clients or suggestion is no There trust repose continue in Mr. Gillis. confidence provide modified to
The rules
should be
activ-
professional
the course of
only misconduct
activities
professional
conduct outside of
ities or
trusted
longer
no
indicating
that a
can
warrants
clients or
in court
represent
appear
Kavanagh, C. J.
Levin, J., concurred with
1369;
842;
Rptr 313;
P2d
Fahey,
8 Cal 3d
106 Cal
See In re
ALR3d
notes
punishable
оf
for
a crime
though
year
one
even
imprisonment
of
punish
This
crime
be a misdemeanor.
differs,
contends,
punishment
appellant
ment
disciplined for convic
only
of a
who can
judge,
Appellant
cites GCR
felony.
tion of
932.4(b)(i) in
of
contention:
support
his latter
judge
"A
of misconduct
shall be deemed
if:
office
"(i)
in the United States
He is hereafter convicted
laws
felony under the
punishable
which
as a
conduct
of
Michigan
Law.”
or Federal
repeat
Trombly:
purpose
what we stated in
We
here
punish.
rules is not
slight
Michigan
16.18
indеed under
law. Rule
The “difference” is
"one
or more”.
includes crime
punishable
761.1(g);
28.843(g)
felony
defines
as
offense
MCLA
MSA
year”.
by imprisonment
more than
"for