GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR v. BOWMAN, 113313 (Mich. 11-12-1999)

603 N.W.2d 786

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR Attorney Grievance Commission, STATE OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VICTOR L. BOWMAN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 113313.Supreme Court of Michigan.
November 12, 1999.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is GRANTED. In their briefs on appeal, the parties are directed to include among the issues to be briefed the question of whether guidelines for the imposition of discipline in attorney discipline cases should be adopted so as to provide for a more uniform system of imposing discipline and, if so, to suggest specific guidelines.

The State Bar of Michigan is invited to file an amicus curiae brief in this matter.

Persons or groups interested in the determination of this question may move the Court for permission to file briefs as amici curiae.

Kelly, J., dissents and states as follows:

The appropriate and time-honored procedure that this Court uses to promulgate court rule changes is administrative, with public notice and an opportunity for written and oral responses from the community. Although cases brought to the Court on appeal in the past have become vehicles for rule changes, it has been unusual. I find no good reason to depart from the normal administrative procedure here in order to address whether guidelines for the imposition of attorney discipline should be adopted. There is no emergency that raises a need. The cases involved are not particularly well suited to address the question.

In addition, whereas these cases are being used to occasion possible significant rule changes, the broad community will probably not receive timely prior notice of them. It will find difficulty in commenting to us about them beforehand, notwithstanding the Court’s invitation for amicus curiae briefs. If the usual administrative route were taken, the Court would have the benefit of a much fairer and broader response and the proposed court rule changes would be specifically articulated beforehand. Consequently, any resulting changes would be more complete and better accepted in the legal community. For those reasons, I would not broaden the issues on appeal in these cases beyond those raised by the parties.

Cavanagh, J., concurs in the statement of Kelly, J.