Opinion ID: 1862573
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Panel Findings on Misconduct.

Text: In our original report we found that respondent submitted an ex parte communication to Judge Bronson in violation of DR 7-110(B) even though it contains an exception for communications otherwise authorized by law. (Perhaps this exception was the basis for the Grievance Administrator's concession that, if Bronson had said what was claimed, then respondent should not be disciplined [Tr. 1493-1494].) Rulings from the bench gave a hint as to our resolution of the conflicting evidence. At page 1533 the panel chair stated: [ Panel Chair ]: Our finding was based on the responsibility of counsel to serve it on the other side and to serve it on judges, whether or not Judge Bronson had said that. And we also gave weight to the fact that neither Judge Gribbs nor Judge Clements remembered him saying that. And they both said they would have remembered if that were the case. A few moments later, at pages 1543-44 of the transcript, the panel chair and respondent's counsel had the following colloquy: Mr. Miller: But will we have your findings of fact in relation to that particular issue? For example, will there be a finding as to whether judge Bronson said, Give me File it with me? [ Panel Chair ]: We have concluded that that was not said. And I think that's already in the record. Mr. Christensen: My understanding was that your ruling was that even if it was said, that there was an independent responsibility [ Panel Chair ]: (Interposing) That's true also. [Tr. 1533, 1543-1544; emphasis added.] It is now apparent to us that our report could be viewed as: (1) disagreeing with the Administrator's legal conclusion that Bronson's statement, if it had been made, would exonerate respondent (Tr. 1493-1494); (2) finding that, even if Bronson said what respondent claimed, in light of the fundamental duty to provide notice to your opponent one could reasonably interpret Bronson's promise to get the memo to the proper parties as including only judges and court staff, and not opposing counsel; or (3) an outright rejection of respondent's testimony as to what Bronson said from the bench. We now clarify that we rely on each of these independent grounds for our finding that misconduct occurred. After our review of the evidence and our specific finding that Bronson did not make the remarks claimed by respondent, we have determined that respondent should be suspended for 45 days. B. General Findings of Fact. The appeal in Luszczynski v. Henry Ford Hospital arose out of a case in which the plaintiff in a case tried by respondent received a no cause verdict. On appeal, plaintiff claimed instructional error by the trial judge. The appeal was assigned to a panel made up of Judges Jerome Bronson (presiding), Roman Gribbs, and Martin Clements (a Lapeer Circuit Judge). The case was argued on May 6, 1986 (Tr. 555 [Rathke]; exhibit O [Clement's [sic] file which includes docket]). Respondent's associate, Monica Farris-Linkner, was assigned to do the appellate briefing (Tr. 466 [Lopatin]; Tr. 1243 [Linkner] ). Respondent did the oral argument (Tr. 467, 1243). The opinion was released in September, 1986 (Tr. 555; exhibit O). Judge Clements, Bronson's law clerk (Robert Rathke), and the former Clerk of the Court of Appeals (Ronald Dzierbicki) all testified as to the normal procedure for assigning opinion-writing duties. The judges are listed on a docket or case call in some order such as presiding first, and the next two by seniority. The cases were then assigned to judges in rotation. Judge Clements, Mr. Rathke, and the records kept by Judge Clements clearly establish that Judge Clements was assigned by this random method to write Luszczynski. At the post-oral argument conference between the judges on the panel, the judges discussed their initial impressions: Judge Clements leaned toward affirmance; Judges Bronson and Gribbs leaned the other way. The testimony of Clements and Rathke establishes that soon after oral argument (perhaps at the post-oral argument conference) Judge Bronson told Judge Clements that he would draft the majority opinion. Mr. Rathke, Judge Clements, and Mr. Dzierbicki established that the custom was for the assigned writer to do the first draft even if he or she ended up in the minority after the conference. Luszczynski was the only exception. Mr. Dzierbicki was asked if he would characterize Bronson as someone who sought out extra work, and he replied no (Tr. 685). After Judge Bronson committed suicide, an investigative task force was formed. While executing a grand jury subpoena, Dennis G. Kapelanski, of the Michigan Attorney General's Office, found exhibits I and J in the Lopatin, Miller law office (stipulation at Tr. 1292-1293). Exhibit I is an original, and J is a copy, of a memorandum which reads in part: