STATE OF MICHIGAN Attorney Discipline Board
rIt0 ÂTTtftHIT 0t$üFlll$ SüAR0
l5ilARe[ FH h¡0t
GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Attorney Grievance Commission,
V
Petitioner,
Case No. 14-1-JC
JOHN C. LANGE, P 39302, Respondent.
ORDER AFFIRMING 3O-DAY SUSPENSION AND VAGATING CONDIT¡ON lssued by the Attorney Discipline Board 211W. Fort St., Ste. 1410, Detroit, Ml On September 29, 2014, Tri-County Hearing Panel #68 issued an order suspending respondent'slicensetopracticelawfor30days,effectiveOctober2l ,2Ol4,basedonrespondent's conviction of attempteä surveillance of an unclothed person, (his 18-year old step-niece), in violation of MCL TSO.Sggj(2)(a)(1), a misdemeanor. The hearing panel's order also imposed S conditions which included reinãìniÀg in full compliance with all of his probation requirements from the criminal case; continuing his pJychotherapy and participating in weekly cognitive behavio.ral therapy for the duration ot-nis piobation; taking his prescription medication as directed by his pnysibian; and, to provide monthly reports of hiJprogress to the Grievance Commission and the
Board.
The Grievance Administrator filed a timely petition for review arguing that the hearing panel imposed insufficient discipline given the nature of the conduct involved. Respondent did not reiuest a stay of the discipiine imposed and thus had served and completed the 30-day suspension ¡y itre time these review proceedings commenced. The Grievance Administrator requests on review that the suspension imposed by the hearing panel be increased to a 180-day suspension' Review proceedings were conducted on January 21,2015. The Board has considered the record below, together witn tne arguments of the parties both in writing and at the review hearing. For the reasons ã¡scussed below, we affirm the 30-day suspension imposed by the hearing panel.
w¡tnesses, the panel believes that even if probation were a choice the panelcould'make, that itwould not be appropriate in this matter. The panel finds that the conduct of respondent was clearly dishonest, intentional, and fraudulent. Having reviewed the various cases involving discipline for a criminal conviction, even if the crime committed by iespondent does not call into question respondent's ability to practice iaw, it still calls into question his fitness to practice law. blearly membership in the State Bar of Michigan is a privilege which is burdened by conditions which this respondent clearly violated.
The panel does not agree that if probation under McR g.121(CXt Xal does not apply, a reprimand would be appropriate, as argueà i¡y rèéponOent's counsel. Nor does the panel agree that respondent's conductwarrants the lengthy suspension requested by the Grievance Administrator. lnstead, the panel believes that a short suspension with the imposition of a number of conditions relevant to the established misconduct is appropriate and will serve to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession. [HP Report 9129114, p 5.1
Certain types of misconduct may reflect adversely on a lawyer's fitness_to practice such that significant discipiine is warranted even if the conduct takes place outside of the practice of law. However, as we have previously indicated: Any rule which would simplistically characterize conduct by labels (e.g. "assault"), and then allow that characterization to dictate the þvál of discipline to be imposed irrespective of factual distinctions, will promote barren records and decisions on discipline without all of the relevant facts. This is ultimately harmfulto the public, the courts, and the bar. For only when a panel, this Board, and/or the court have a full and true picture of the nature of the misconduct can the appropriate level of disci pl i ne be assig ned. lG riev a n ce Ad m i n i strator v Arnold M. Fink,96-181-JC (ADB 2001).I
Among the relevant facts and circumstances involved in this case are respondent's unblemished iecord and his aberrant behavior accompanying his sudden, medically unsupervised cessation of an anti-depressant respondent had been taking. Respondent's guilty plea was to a one-year misdemeanoi offense. ln the criminal case, he was sentenced to two years of probation with ôonditions related to the charges. The hearing panel also imposed conditions which, in part, included the requirement that respóndent continue his outpatient psychotherapy during the period probation and weekly cognitive behavioral therapy through its entirety.
license to practice law in state courts was automatically reinstated effective November 24,2014, the date on which he filed his affidavit of compliance pursuant to MCR 9.123. The next day, respondent filed an affidavit of compliance and a petition for reinstatement with the US District Court. Despite the Grievance Administrator's objection and request to hold the proceedingl j! abeyance ,ntil th"*" review proceedings were concluded, an order of reinstatement to 1f,9 yS District Court and US Bankruptcy Cõurt was entered on January 23, 2015, and effective immediately.
While a suspension greaterthan 30 days may be appropriate forthis conduct, in light of all of the circumstances here, iñduding respondent's counsel's representations atthe review hearing that respondent practices exclusivéty in bankruptcy court, and the fact that respondent's license *as sujpended in federalcourtfrom ôctober30,2O14through January 23,2015, we concludethat a 30-day suspension is appropriate in this case and, therefore, the suspension is AFFIRMED.
By:
ATTORNEY D¡SCIPLINE BOARD
J
L*, M. Cameron, Jr., ChairPe
DATED: March 24,2015 Board members James M. Cameron, Jr., Dulce M. Fuller, Louann Van DerWiele, Michael Murray, James A. Fink and John W. lnhulsen concur in this decision. Board members Lawrence G. Campbell and Sylvia P. Whitmer, Ph.D. were absent and did not participate.
Board member Rosalind E. Griffin, M.D. dissents from this decision, and states: I dissent from the majority decision to affirm the 30-day suspension imposed by the hearing panel. Respondent made a conscious decision to attempt to videotape his step-niece whjle she was changing clothes. I would increase the suspension imposed by the hearing panel to 90 days, with credit for the 30-day suspension respondent has already served. ln addition, I would also affirm the imposition oi the condition requiring respondent to continue his medication as recommended by Dr. TaYlor.