Opinion ID: 845584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: in-court statements

Text: MRPC 3.5(c) provides that a lawyer shall not engage in undignified or discourteous conduct toward the tribunal. The Comments on the rule, while not binding, are persuasive in determining its meaning and reflect the thoughts of this Court on the rule's true meaning. The comments on MRPC 3.5 provide, in relevant part: The advocate's function is to present evidence and argument so that the cause may be decided according to law. Refraining from undignified or discourteous conduct is a corollary of the advocate's right to speak on behalf of litigants. A lawyer may stand firm against abuse by a judge, but should avoid reciprocation; the judge's default is no justification for similar dereliction by an advocate. An advocate can present the cause, protect the record for subsequent review, and preserve professional integrity by patient firmness no less effectively than by belligerence or theatrics. When subsection c is read in the context of the entire rule and the comment, its intent becomes apparent. It is aimed at prohibiting conduct that is directed toward the tribunal only during oral argument or trial. Everything in the comment refers to activity that transpires in a courtroom. The comment is quiet about an attorney's conduct anywhere else or after a proceeding is no longer pending. When interpreting MRPC 3.5(c), it is instructive to look at the American Bar Association's (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct 3.5. It provides that [a] lawyer shall not ... (d) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. MRPC 3.5(c) was fashioned from ABA Model Rule 3.5. Also, the ABA's former DR 7-106(C)(6) and our former DR 7-106(c)(6) were identical. DR 7-106 is another source of MRPC 3.5(c). It stated, In appearing in his professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not ... engage in undignified or discourteous conduct which is degrading to a tribunal. DR 7-106(c)(6)(e). As ADB members Theodore J. St. Antoine, William P. Hampton, and George H. Lennon noted in their opinion in this case: In terms of the structure of Rule 3.5 versus the comparable Code provision, we note that the former Code's DR 7-106 dealt entirely with Trial Conduct, and subparagraph (C) contained seven prohibitions applicable when a lawyer was appearing in his professional capacity before a tribunal. Michigan and Model Rules 3.5 involve not only rules regarding conduct during a proceeding, but also rules which had previously been located elsewhere in the Code, such as prohibitions against influencing judges and other officials. Thus, the introductory paragraph of Rule 3.5 reflects a different, broader, scope than that of the comparable Code provision. That is, instead of saying (as the Code did), In appearing in his professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not ..., MRPC 3.5 says simply, A lawyer shall not .... The ABA focused Model Rule 3.5(c) on conduct related to pending proceedings by prohibiting conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. Michigan's Rule, as we have mentioned, is different. Although Michigan largely adopted the ABA Model Rules, the text of MRPC 3.5(c) was modified so that it proscribes undignified or discourteous conduct toward the tribunal. [Emphasis in original.] As these members of the ADB properly explained, MRPC 3.5(c) eliminated the inquiry into the lawyer's intent, choosing instead to focus on whether the conduct was (1) undignified or discourteous, and (2) conduct toward the tribunal. Because respondent concedes, and I agree, that his statements were disrespectful and discourteous, the issue becomes whether the conduct was toward the tribunal. Respondent made the statements on a radio program. He did not make them in a court of law. I would limit MRPC 3.5(c) to statements and conduct that take place in a courtroom. Accordingly, I would find that respondent did not violate MRPC 3.5(c) because the conduct in question was not toward a tribunal as envisioned by the rule. I am unpersuaded by the majority's conclusion that limiting the rule's application to a courtroom would make it superfluous in light of the contempt powers of courts. MCL 600.1711(1). Rather, MRPC 3.5(c) provides an alternative to the power of the court to find an attorney in contempt. There are situations where a reprimand or other discipline not involving a contempt of court citation is appropriate. MRPC 3.5(c) expands a judge's range of options. I also disagree with the majority that a construction of MRPC 3.5(c) that limits its application to courtrooms fails to accord consideration to the importance the courtesy and civility rules serve as a vehicle for preserving the public's confidence in the integrity of the legal process. Ante at 137-38. Confidence in our courts is best served when an attorney is free to comment on what the attorney perceives as the deficiencies of our judges and of our legal system. Extending the rule beyond the courtroom necessarily chills comment. I would read MRPC 3.5(c) together with its comment and hold that it applies only to statements and conduct in a courtroom. Therefore, I would find that respondent did not violate the rule. Respondent Did not Violate MRCP 6.5(a) MRCP 6.5(a) reads: A lawyer shall treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process. A lawyer shall take particular care to avoid treating such a person discourteously or disrespectfully because of the person's race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic. To the extent possible, a lawyer shall require subordinate lawyers and nonlawyer assistants to provide such courteous and respectful treatment. Respondent argues that MRPC 6.5(a) does not apply to the statements complained of in this case. This rule provides that [a] lawyer shall treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process. The comments on the rule provide in part: A lawyer is an officer of the court who has sworn to uphold the federal and state constitutions, to proceed only by means that are truthful and honorable, and to avoid offensive personality. It follows that such a professional must treat clients and third persons with courtesy and respect. For many citizens, contact with a lawyer is the first or only contact with the legal system. Respect for law and for legal institutions is diminished whenever a lawyer neglects the obligation to treat persons properly. It is increased when the obligation is met. A lawyer must pursue a client's interests with diligence. This often requires the lawyer to frame questions and statements in bold and direct terms. The obligation to treat persons with courtesy and respect is not inconsistent with the lawyer's right, where appropriate, to speak and write bluntly. Obviously, it is not possible to formulate a rule that will clearly divide what is properly challenging from what is impermissibly rude. A lawyer's professional judgment must be employed here with care and discretion. When read in conjunction with the comments, the rule reveals an underlying intent that lawyers display civility towards parties, witnesses, and third parties involved in the legal process. Because the rule focuses on the legal process, its application should be to pending litigation or other pending legal matters. To read it otherwise would be to extend its application beyond any identifiable time limit. An attorney could be subject to sanctions under the rule years after a legal matter was no longer pending. I agree with the reasoning of ADB members St. Antoine, Hampton, and Lennon that [n]othing in Rule 6.5 suggests that `persons involved in the legal process' may not ever be criticized for their role in that process, not even after the involvement has ceased. As explained above, respondent's comments were not made while the case was pending. The Court of Appeals had decided the matter, and no postjudgment motions or appeals had been filed. Therefore, I would find that respondent's conduct did not violate MRPC 6.5(a) because the rule is not intended to apply to comments made about the participants in a legal action when the matter is not pending.