Court Opinion

ID: 9852052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:23:43.232598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:21.564819
License: Public Domain

Kavanagh, C. J.
(dissenting). We do not believe the penalty of 60 days suspension from the practice of law is warranted under the circumstances of this case. Our obligation to the profession and the public would be as well served by a reprimand.
We reiterate a previous comment:
"In deciding whether any discipline is justified, we should distinguish carefully between what a lawyer does as a lawyer and what he does as a private citizen. The very highest standards can properly be required of a lawyer in his professional conduct, but when he is not purporting to act as a lawyer, his private conduct must be publicly scandalous or indicate that he properly cannot be trusted to advise and act for clients before it justifies public Bar discipline.” State Bar Grievance Administrator v Grossman, 390 Mich 157, 164; 211 NW2d 21 (1973) (Dissent of T. G. Kavanagh, J.).1
There is no suggestion that clients or the courts may not properly continue to repose trust and confidence in Mr. Gillis.
The rules should be modified to provide that only misconduct in the course of professional activities or conduct outside of professional activities indicating that a lawyer can no longer be trusted to represent clients or appear in court warrants discipline.
Levin, J., concurred with Kavanagh, C. J.

 See In re Fahey, 8 Cal 3d 842; 106 Cal Rptr 313; 505 P2d 1369; 63 ALR3d 465 (1973).