On September 5, 1969, the State Grievance Administrator of the State Bar filed a formal complaint charging plaintiff Sternberg with 13 counts of embezzlement from clients which, if true, constitute professional misconduct and warrant disciplinary action. Formal hearing was set for November 10, 1969.
On October 27, 1969, Sternberg was informed by members of the Attorney General’s staff he would be criminally prosecuted for embezzlement. Plaintiff thereupon requested adjournment of the Griev
On November 12, 1969, the Attorney General filed a criminal complaint in the Recorder’s Court of Detroit charging Sternberg with six counts of embezzlement. Three of the six criminal counts correspond to charges in the State Bar complaint.
On December 11, 1969, the State Bar moved to dissolve or amend the order of November 7, 1969, to permit the grievance hearing to continue or to suspend Sternberg from the practice of law until the hearing could be completed. On February 6, 1970, the trial judge entered an order denying this motion. The State Bar appealed to the Court of Appeals and also applied to this Court for leave to bypass the Court of Appeals. We granted leave (
On March 1, 1971, Sternberg’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that on February 10, 1971, “a jury returned a verdict of guilty to the charge of embezzling funds of one Clearence Lowell
[sic]
in the value of more than $100.00 contrary to M.S.A. 28.371, which offense is a felony;
*
* * that on or about the 12th day of February, 1971 an order of suspension was entered by the state bar grievance board of the Michigan State Bar Association; * * * that
The motion was noticed for March 4, 1971, at which time the case was also set for oral argument before this Court. The motion was denied. We consider the case on the merits because of the importance of the legal and procedural questions it presents.
The injunction staying the State Bar grievance proceeding was based on the theory that Sternberg’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination would be infringed by conducting such a hearing while criminal charges based on some of the same issues were pending against him.
Plaintiff claimed that if the injunction was dissolved, he would be compelled to testify in the grievance hearing to avoid disbarment. In
Spevack
v.
Klein
(1967),
“There is nothing in the rules or the court order from which we can conclude that the plaintiff’s failure to testify will be held a ground for disbarment or forfeiture of office. ji.
“But, says the plaintiff, I will nevertheless be put to a difficult choice, and the Fifth Amendment should be so construed that one is not faced with the compulsion to add his own possibly affirmative good impression to weight of evidence in the disciplinary hearing before the criminal trial.
“This argument proves too much, for it applies with equal force to every situation where civil and criminal proceedings may arise out of the same factual pattern. If, for example, the charge against an attorney was embezzlement of a client’s funds, acceptance of plaintiff’s position would require that the wrong client await the completion of a criminal trial before he sought a civil recovery, because of the possible compulsion of the risk of a judgment. The same would be true of every defendant in a wrongful death action; of many taxpayers; of most antitrust defendants. * * *
“No authority has come to our attention for so broad a reading of the Fifth Amendment, and the countervailing possibilities of prejudice to civil litigants militates against any such extension of constitutional doctrine.”
In this appeal, no question as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court was raised. It should be noted, however, that since this action was commenced the State Bar disciplinary rules have been changed to eliminate involvement by any court other than this one in disciplinary matters. At the time this action
The revision of Rule 15 adopted by this Court on January 8, 1970, streamlines the State Bar disciplinary procedure and eliminates the role of circuit courts in such matters. The new rule establishes a State Bar Grievance Board of seven members. The Grievance Board appoints hearing panels of three referees to hold hearings upon complaints against members of the Bar and to make the initial determination. Procedural and administrative rules of the State Bar Grievance Board were adopted by this Court on May 7, 1970, and ordered effective retroactively as of March 1, 1970. Grievance Board Rules 15.14 and 15.15 provide for review of hearing panel determinations by the Grievance Board in a manner similar to review by circuit courts under the old rule. *
Under the new State Bar disciplinary procedure, there is no role for the circuit courts or for the Court of Appeals. The change was made to provide for speedy and just determination of misconduct charges against members of the Bar and to eliminate procedural tie-ups. Such delays allow attorneys
The Circuit Court is reversed and the injunction is vacated. Costs to appellant.
Notes
15.14. “Either the Administrator, the complainant or the respondent may in writing petition the Board for review of the order of the Hearing Panel within twenty days after service of the order. The Board shall then issue an order to show cause, at a time and place specified, why the order of the Hearing Panel should not be confirmed. * * * .”
15.15. “After hearing on the order to show cause, the Board shall confirm, amend, reverse or nullify the order of the Hearing Panel in whole or in part or order other discipline. The Board shall file and serve its order on review the same as set forth for orders of Hearing Panels.”
State Bar Bule 15 provides further that:
“Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the State Bar Grievance Board shall have a right to appeal sueh decision to the Supreme Court.”