Opinion ID: 2002270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: assignment as counsel for indigents by, and appearances before, judge lawrence of attorneys with whom he had financial ties

Text: We find that the master and the commission correctly concluded that Judge Lawrence improperly allowed appearances by, and assigned indigent criminal cases to, attorneys with whom he was formerly associated and with whom he had and still has financial ties and that this constituted judicial misconduct. In In the Matter of Del Rio, 400 Mich 665; 256 NW2d 727 (1977), we quoted from In re Greenberg, 442 Pa 411, 416; 280 A2d 370 (1971), and Tamm, Are Courts Going the Way of the Dinosaur?, 57 ABA J 228 (March, 1971): `For generations before and since it has been taught that a judge must possess the confidence of the community; that he must not only be independent and honest, but, equally important, believed by all men to be independent and honest. A cloud of witnesses testify that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Without the appearance as well as the fact of justice, respect for the law vanishes in a democracy.' In re Bennett, 403 Mich 178, 198; 267 NW2d 914 (1978). On January 1, 1971, respondent assumed his duties as district court judge. He had previously been a municipal judge and practiced law with Russell A. Volz, Richard D. Mintz, and Patrick M. McDonough, under the firm name of Lawrence, Volz & Mintz, P.C. Since respondent owned 99% of the shares of the professional corporation, a financial arrangement was made in which the other attorneys agreed to pay respondent $317,000 over ten years for his interest in the firm and its assets. On January 3, 1972, another series of documents was drafted and signed, making the professional corporation liable for the debt. In 1976, there was a major restructuring of the debt, and the indebtedness of Mintz and McDonough was forgiven, while Volz continued to owe respondent a substantial sum. During this same period of time, these attorneys also leased office space on John R Road and East Twelve Mile Road in Madison Heights, the former owned by Lawrence Associates, Inc., and the latter owned by Judge Lawrence and his wife. In sum, respondent had substantial financial ties to the attorneys in the firm of Volz, Mintz & McDonough, P.C. At the same time, these attorneys made a substantial number of appearances before respondent. They appeared five times before Judge Lawrence during 1971 and 1972 and 19 times in 1972 and 1973, 14 of which were appointments to represent indigents. During the period of 1971 to 1980, members of the firm appeared before respondent in over 270 cases, 202 of which were appointments by the court to represent indigent criminal defendants at an expenditure of $31,000 in public funds. The totality of the circumstances must be evaluated. It is not necessary for a particular canon or disciplinary rule to be violated before disciplinary action is warranted. GCR 1963, 932.4(d). [4] It is clear that Judge Lawrence had substantial economic ties to his former associates and that he appointed them to represent indigent criminal defendants in numerous cases before him from which they gained substantial sums of money. This action is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice because it definitely gives the appearance of favoritism and economic self-interest. [5] Under the prior Canons of Judicial Ethics, respondent was in violation of Canons 4, 26, and 29. Canon 4 generally states that a judge's official conduct should be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, while Canon 26 specifically states that [h]e should, so far as reasonably possible, refrain from all relations which would normally tend to arouse the suspicion that such relations warp or bias his judgment, or prevent his impartial attitude of mind in the administration of his judicial duties. Canon 29 deals with self-interest and states that [a] judge should abstain from performing or taking part in any judicial act in which his personal interests are involved. Canons 2, 3C, and 5C(1) [6] of the present Code of Judicial Conduct have also been violated. The extensive financial involvement with the named attorneys and the fact that there were 202 appointments to represent indigent criminal defendants definitely raise an appearance of impropriety and violation of the above canons. [7]