Court Opinion

ID: 9717960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:13:39.110689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:56.397062
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(dissenting). The question presented is whether the Attorney Grievance Commission may, during the period of investigation and before filing a complaint, require an attorney to appear as a witness and produce documents before the administrator or an investigator concerning the matter under investigation. We would hold that the court rule permitting the issuance of subpoenas to require the appearance of a "witness” and the production of documents does not apply to an attorney under investigation, and that an attorney under investigation may not be required to appear, testify, or produce documents before the hearing on the complaint.
*257I
Plaintiff is an attorney at law, and is the subject of a request for investigation filed with the Attorney Grievance Commission. The request was filed by the agent of a lessor from whom the plaintiff leased office space, and alleged that the plaintiff was delinquent in rent payments and had tendered checks drawn on insufficient funds. Plaintiff timely answered the request for investigation. He acknowledged that he had tendered nsf checks, attributed this to poor bookkeeping, and stated that the delinquencies had been fully paid.
An attorney for the commission wrote the plaintiff inquiring whether any client trust monies were in the account on which the nsf checks were drawn, and making other inquiries. The plaintiff responded to this request, stating that he had written 485 checks of which eight had been returned nsf, all had been paid upon redeposit and none had been returned to the payee unpaid, and contending that the only person harmed was the plaintiff who had been required to pay $96 in service charges levied by the bank.
Not satisfied with this response, particularly because it did not address the inquiry concerning the possible commingling of client trust monies, the commission issued a subpoena duces tecum directing the plaintiff to appear before the grievance administrator "to give evidence” and to bring with him "any and all records relating to client trust accounts, general business accounts, any accounts wherein client monies may be placed, plus records showing receipts and disbursements of client monies from May 1, 1985, to the present.”
Plaintiff filed a complaint for mandamus with this Court which was treated as a complaint for superintending control, challenging the authority *258of the commission to issue the subpoena. We ordered that the cause be argued and submitted as a calendar matter.
ii
The grievance administrator contends that an attorney has an affirmative duty to cooperate with the disciplinary authorities, and that disclosure of a targeted attorney’s files for investigative purposes may be compelled without violation of his constitutional rights.1
Plaintiff acknowledges that he is required to cooperate, claims that he has done so, asserts that the inquiry by the administrator concerning the trust fund accounts goes beyond the subject matter of the request for investigation,2 and that the court rule providing for the issuance of a precomplaint subpoena does not authorize the issuance of a precomplaint subpoena directed to an attorney who is the subject of the inquiry.
The court rule provides that an attorney is required to assist the administrator in the investigation of a complaint.3 Another rule provides that *259an attorney served with a request for investigation shall file a written answer fully and fairly disclosing all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct.4 Still another rule provides that if a complaint is filed against an attorney he shall personally appear at the hearing and is subject to cross-examination.5
The rules further provide that during the course of an investigation, the administrator may request a law enforcement office to assist in an investigation,6 and the commission, upon request of the administrator or the attorney who is the subject of the investigation, may issue subpoenas requiring the appearance of a "witness” and the production of documents concerning the matter under investigation.
The plaintiff contends, and we agree, that the rule does not contemplate the issuance of a precomplaint subpoena directed to an attorney who is under investigation.
The rule provides:
On request of the administrator or the respondent, the commission may issue subpoenas to require the appearance of a witness or the production of documents and other tangible things before the administrator or an investigator concerning matters then under investigation.[7]
The word "respondent” as well as the word "witness” is used in this section. The grievance administrator reads this language as if it provided for the issuance of a subpoena to require the appearance of "the respondent or any other witness.”
*260It appears that the terminology of chapter 9 of the Michigan Court Rules, concerning professional disciplinary proceedings, was carefully chosen. The term "attorney” refers to all persons licensed to practice law in Michigan.8 The term "respondent” is defined as an attorney named in a request for investigation or in a complaint.9 The term "witness” is not defined. The terms "respondent” and "witness” appear a number of times in the rules, and clearly have different meanings.
The court rule provides for the issuance of subpoenas by a hearing panel after the filing of a formal complaint.10 The rule provides that a subpoenaed witness must be paid the same fee and mileage as a witness subpoenaed to testify in the circuit court.11 The attorney who is the subject of the complaint is not a subpoenaed witness; he is referred to as the respondent and he is required personally to appear without subpoena.12
The obligation of an attorney served with a request for investigation under Rule 9.113 is to answer and to "fully and fairly disclose all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct.” The challenged subpoena is not directed to the "alleged misconduct,” but rather to suspicions of as yet uncharged misconduct.13
The grievance administrator would liken the powers of the Attorney Grievance Commission to those of the Federal Trade Commission, relying on a decision of the United States Supreme Court which said of the Federal Trade Commission:_
*261It has a power of inquisition, if one chooses to call it that, which is not derived from the judicial function. It is more analogous to the Grand Jury, which does not depend on a case or controversy for power to get evidence but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an administrative body, it, too, may take steps to inform itself as to whether there is probable violation of the law. [United States v Morton Salt Co, 338 US 632, 642-643; 70 S Ct 357; 94 L Ed 401 (1950). Emphasis added.]
In promulgating MCR 9.114(C)(1), this Court did not intend to repose in the Attorney Grievance Commission inquisitorial or grand jury powers, powers which neither the Attorney General nor any prosecutor possesses. This Court did not intend to empower the grievance administrator to issue a subpoena to a lawyer for the production of documents and examine him under oath before filing a formal complaint.
It appears that the grievance administrator has issued subpoenas directed to the plaintiff’s banks and possibly others. In holding that the grievance administrator may not, before filing a formal complaint, issue a subpoena directed to an attorney who is the subject of the inquiry, we do not preclude the filing of a complaint if other evidence would justify the grievance administrator in doing so.14
We would grant the complaint for superintending control and quash the subpoena issued to the plaintiff.
Cavanagh and Archer, JJ., concurred with Levin, J.

 See Kelly v Greason, 23 NY2d 368; 296 NYS2d 937; 244 NE2d 456 (1968).
In Spevack v Klein, 385 US 511, 512; 87 S Ct 625; 17 L Ed 2d 574 (1967), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privilege against self-incrimination precluded the disbarment of a lawyer from the New York Bar for failing "to honor a subpoena duces tecum served on him in that he refused to produce the demanded financial records and refused to testify at the judicial, inquiry.” The plaintiff in the instant case has not claimed that the production of the records or his testimony would tend to incriminate him.

 The Court has directed the briefing and oral argument of Doe v Attorney Grievance Comm, No. 80503, as a calendar case to address the question whether the administrator’s power to investigate alleged misconduct under MCR 9.109(A)(5) includes the power to obtain the issuance of subpoenas, provided for in MCR 9.114(C), before a request for investigation has been filed and there has been an opportunity for the respondent (lawyer) to answer concerning the alleged misconduct.

 MCR 9.103.

 MCR 9.113.

 MCR 9.115(H).

 MCR 9.114(B).

 MCR 9.114(C)(1).

 MCR 9.101(5).

 MCR 9.100(6).

 MCR 9.115(1).

 Id.

 MCR 9.115(H).

 See n 2.

 See n 2.