Court Opinion

ID: 9686301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:40:50.121251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:17.453897
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the result, and I agree that the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Attorney Discipline Board have jurisdiction to proceed against a disbarred lawyer who violates an order of discipline by continuing to practice law. I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s decision to limit the Attorney Discipline Board and Attorney Grievance Commission’s jurisdiction to the period during which the disbarred lawyer is ineligible to seek reinstatement.
The majority states:
The situation is different, however, if the alleged misconduct occurs after a disbarred lawyer has regained eligibility for licensure, but has not sought reinstatement. In that cir*265cumstance, the disbarred lawyer has no more authority to act for others than does a person who never possessed a license to practice law. [Ante, p 262.]
This is an irrelevant difference without a distinction. A disbarred attorney who is eligible to reapply for admission to the bar is still in a very different position than one who was never licensed as an attorney. The disbarred attorney was previously held out to the public as a member of the bar. The disbarred attorney is also able to be reinstated without undergoing a character and fitness review. Kelly v Bd of Law Examiners, 454 Mich 1206 (1997).1
Because this Court has decided (a decision with which I continue to disagree) that an attorney can never be truly permanently disbarred, but always will remain eligible to apply for reinstatement, I believe that the ADB and AGC should retain jurisdiction over the disbarred attorney when he is accused of practicing law without a license.

 As I stated in Kelly, I believe the Board of Law Examiners has and should continue to have the discretionary authority to require such a review.