## Facts

- Geoffrey N. Fieger, a Michigan attorney, represented a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action that resulted in a $15 million jury verdict.
- The defendants appealed; a Court of Appeals panel reversed and held that trial misconduct by Fieger would independently have warranted a new trial.
- After appellate argument and before the appellate proceedings were final, Fieger used his radio program to personally attack the appellate judges by name with vulgar and demeaning insults.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission filed a disciplinary complaint alleging violations of:
  - MRPC 3.5(c) (undignified or discourteous conduct toward the tribunal), and
  - MRPC 6.5(a) (failure to treat persons in the legal process with courtesy and respect).
- The Attorney Discipline Board dismissed the complaint, concluding the rules were unconstitutional as applied under the First Amendment and that the comments occurred after the case was effectively over.

## Issues

1. Whether Fieger’s on-air insults directed at appellate judges during the pendency of his client’s appeal violated MRPC 3.5(c) and MRPC 6.5(a).
2. Whether applying MRPC 3.5(c) and MRPC 6.5(a) to Fieger’s statements violated the First Amendment.
3. Whether the Attorney Discipline Board erred by treating the appellate matter as no longer pending when the statements were made.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Attorney Discipline Board.
- The court held that Fieger’s statements violated MRPC 3.5(c) and MRPC 6.5(a).
- The court held the rules were constitutional as applied to Fieger’s statements.
- The court rejected the conclusion that the litigation was over when the statements were made, finding the appeal was still pending.
- The case was remanded for imposition of the agreed discipline: a reprimand.
- In a later order, the court denied a stay pending certiorari, finding no irreparable injury and noting the limited nature of the sanction.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may be professionally disciplined for undignified or discourteous conduct directed toward a tribunal and for failing to treat participants in the legal process with courtesy and respect.
- Civility rules may be applied consistent with the First Amendment when the discipline targets the manner and context of attorney speech connected to ongoing judicial proceedings, including personal and vulgar attacks on judges.
- Attorney speech may be subject to professional regulation in circumstances where similar speech by nonlawyers would not be, due to the lawyer’s role in the administration of justice.
- Speech aimed at judges in a matter still pending before them has a heightened connection to the judicial process and may be regulated to protect the integrity and orderly functioning of the courts.
- A public reprimand is a limited sanction; absent concrete irreparable injury, it does not justify extraordinary interim relief pending further review.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court held that disciplining an attorney for vulgar, personal on-air attacks on appellate judges during a pending appeal did not violate the First Amendment, reversed the dismissal of disciplinary charges, and ordered a reprimand under MRPC 3.5(c) and MRPC 6.5(a).


Grievance Adm'r v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231, 719 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. 2006)