In the Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Leonard R Eston, P 13231, Petitioner. 94-78-RP Decided: September 27, 1995 BOARD OPINION The petitioner was suspended for fifteen months, effective July 29, 1987, in Matter of Leonard R Eston, ADB Case No DP 7/85. In a separate matter, ADB 24/87, the petitioner was suspended for a period of three years, effective August 10, 1987. The petitioner's first petition for reinstatement was denied by a hearing panel. In a divided opinion, the Attorney Discipline Board reversed the panel's denial of reinstatement by a vote of 4-3. See Matter of the Reinstatement Petition of Leonard R Eston, ADB Case No. 90-138-RP. The Board's order was then appealed to the Supreme Court by the Grievance Administrator. On August 7, 1992, the Court reversed the Board's decision and adopted the hearing panel order denying reinstatement. Matter of the Reinstatment Petiton of Leonard Eston, 440 Mich 1205, (1992). On May 2, 1994, the petitioner filed the petition for reinstatement which is the subject of these proceedings. In accordance with MCR 9.124(C), the Grievance Administrator investigated the petitioner's eligibility for reinstatement and reported his findings in a ten-volume written report which included the record of the prior reinstatement proceeding, the record of petitioner's prior misconduct, the court records in various proceeding in which the petitioner had participated as a party, tax records and other "available evidence bearing on the petitioner's eligibility for reinstatement". The report also included information pertaining to two additional orders of discipline entered during the period of petitioner's suspension--a thirty-day suspension, effective July 13, 1993, in Matter of Leonard R Eston,
Board Opinion re: Leonard R Eston; 94-78-RP 2 ADB Case No. 90-91-GA and an order of reprimand effective July 14, 1993 in Matter of Leonard R Eston, ADB Case No. 92-40-GA. During three days of hearing conducted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #15, the panel considered the voluminous report and other documentary evidence submitted by the parties together with the petitioner's testimony under direct and cross-examination and the testimony of other witnesses. On March 9, 1994, the hearing panel entered its order granting the petition for reinstatement accompanied by a twenty-six page majority report. The third panel member submitted a dissenting opinion. On review, the Board must determine whether or not a hearing panel's findings have proper evidentiary support in the whole record. In re Freedman, 406 Mich 256; 277 NW2d 635 (1979); In re Grimes, 414 Mich 483; 326 NW2d 380 (1982); Grievance Administrator v August, 438 Mich 296 (1991). At the same time, the Board possesses a measure of discretion with regard to its ultimate decision. In re Daggs, 411 Mich 304, 318-319; 307 NW2d 66 (1981); Grievance Administrator v August, supra p. 304. Finally, the Board is cognizant of the "element of subjective judgment in the application of MCR 9.123(B)" enunciated by the Court. August, supra at 311. To achieve reinstatement following a disciplinary suspension of greater than 179 days, the petitioner must establish by clear and convincing evidence his or her compliance with the applicable provisions of MCR 9.123(B)(1-9). The dissenting panel member found that petitioner Eston failed to meet this burden with regard to subrules (5), (6) and (7) which require a demonstration that his conduct since the order of discipline has been exemplary and above reproach; that he has a proper understanding and attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the bar and will conduct himself or herself in conformity with those standards; and that he can safely be recommended to the public, the courts and the legal profession as a person fit to be consulted by others, to represent them, to act in matters of trust and confidence and to
Board Opinion re: Leonard R Eston; 94-78-RP 3 aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the court. We conclude that the record as a whole contains insufficient evidentiary support for the findings of the panel majority. In so doing, we adopt the dissenting opinion of panel member Jennifer Peregord in its entirety and incorporate it by reference as an appendix to this opinion.
Board Members C Beth DunCombe, Elaine Fieldman, Albert L Holtz and Miles A Hurwitz concur. Board Member Marie Farrell-Donaldson would affirm the hearing panel's decision to grant reinstatement. Board Member John F Burns was voluntarily recused. Board Members George E Bushnell, Jr, Barbara B Gattorn and Paul D Newman did not participate.
In The Maattterr Off The Reeiinssttateemeentt Peettiition of Leeonnaarrd R.. Esstton,, P13231
J.. Perregorrd,, dissentting.. Beeccausse I cannoott finnd thatt the pettitiioonner's conduucctt durring hiis perriod of suspenssiion has been exemppllaarry and abovee reproach,, thatt he has a properr undeerrsstanding c,ff and attittuude toowaarrd the staandards thatt are impossed on meembbeerrss off the barr and wiillll conduucctt hiimsseellff in confformiitty therewiitth,, orr thhaatt: he can safelly be reeccoommmeended to the pubblliicc,, the couurrttss,, and the legall prroffession as a perrson fit to prracttice laaw,, I diissenntt.. See MNCR 9.123 ({B))((55)),, (6)),, & (7)).. I have strruugglled,, as I know my co—-paanneelliisstts havee,, wiitth the prraccttiiccaall,, appllied meeaanniing off the teerrms "eexxeemppllaryy" and "aabboovvee reepprrooaacchh" in this cassee.. Weebbse~tteer' ss Unnaabbrriidged Diiccttiionaarryy,, 2d Ed.. ,, deffines "eexxeemppllaryy" as s"seerrvviing as a patttern orr mooddeell for imiittattion;; woorrtthy off imiitattiicomn.." To be a"abboovvee reproach" connotteess behaavviiorr conssiissttenttly superrico,rr to thatt whhiich one miigghhtt orrdiinaarriilly expeecctt.. The evidence presented t:o us establisshed thatt,, subsequeentt to Mrr.. Estoonn•ss first pettiitiioon fco,rr reinstaatteemeenntt,, filed on Auugguusstt 15,, 1990:: 1 1.. Peettiitioonerr conttiinnuuEe!sS to have an $1,, 800 unpaaiid jj udgmeenntt agaiinsstt himm resulltiinng frroomm a laawssuuiitt by 3M Haarrriis invollving a leeased Xeerrox maacchhiinnee.. (Essttoen,, Vooll.. X att 22244—-255:: Peettitiiooner'!! 7/14/94 Reeiinssttateemeenntt Deeppoossiittiion (herreaafftterr "77//1144//94 Deepp..)")..
1 1 All thhoough the Supreme Coouurrtt ameended the laanguage off subsseccttion (7) off NMCR 9 ..123 to reeqquuiirrEe! us to conssiiderr the naatturre off the miisscondduucctt whhiich led to the orrigiinall suspenssiion,, I do nott fiinnd thatt miissconndduucctt,, negllectting a crimiinall appeeaall and prractticing law durriing a brriieff period off suspenssiion,, to be so egregiiouss orr outtrageouss as to castt a shaddoow oveerr Mrr.. Esstton'ss requeesstt for reinstaatteemmentt seven yearrs latterr.. And whhiille we are directed to conssiiderr a pettitiioonner's conduucctt in an all-—iinncclluusivve fashion for the enttiire perriiod off suspenssiion,, MNCR 9.. 123 (B))((5)),, Mrr.. Esstt on'ss conduucctt durrii ng tt he first three yearrs of hiis suspension waass alrreeaady uttiliizzed as the bassiis for denyiing him reinstaatteemmentt in 199911.. Accccoorrddiinnggllyy,, I bellieve it is apprroopprriiaatte to conssiider Mrr.. Esston•ss condduucctt frroomm 1987—-1990 onlly for comppaararattiive purrpoosseess;; vii ewed in that lightt,, I finnd thatt Mrr.. Estoonn•ss conduucctt since the filliinng off hiis prriiorr pettiition forr reinstaatteementt in 1990 has mooddeerraatted frroomm thatt whhiich he exhiibiited durring the firstt three yearrs off hiis suspenssiionn.. Noottwwitithhssttaannddiinngg,, for the reasons whhiich follloow,, I cannott join my co—-paanneelliisstts in reccoommeennddiing hiis rreiinssttaatteemeenntt.. 22Porrttions of the offffiiciiall recorrd,, conttained in 10 bound volumees submiitttted by the Grriievance Addmminiinsitsrtraattoorr,, wiillll be (conttinued. •.•.•) ) 1
2.. Peettiitiooner conttinues to have a $1,,400 unpaaiid judgmeenntt agaiinsstt him arisiinng outt off an automoobbiille acciideenntt.. (7/14/94 Deepp..,, Vooll.. X att 22255—-2266)).. 3.. Peettiittiiooner rreceiived blliightt ciittattiioons (aftter 30 dayss ell apsed ffrroomm tt he iissssuuance off a waarrniing wiitthouutt rremeeddiiaall acttiion)) for haviing an iinoperrablle vehiiclle and wooood paalllletts and olld ttiires on hiis prropeerrtty.. A bench waarrrraanntt waass ii sssued fforr tthe peettiitionerr after he faileed to appeeaarr for hiis Febrruarry 7,, 1992,, triall on this case.. The ciitatioons weerre ulltiimaattelly abatted and tthe tiicckets dii smiissed wiitth $50 couurrtt cosstts assessed.. The code enfforrcemeenntt offfiicer who ii ssued tthese ciittattiioons testiffiieed unequuiivooccaalllly thatt they weerre isssued sollely due to the presence off woood paallllettss,, tires,, and an inoperrablle vehhiiccllee.. ((Budddd,, Hrrgg.. Trr.. att 142—-45 & 1622)).. Noottwitithhssttanddiingg,, tthe pettiittiioonerr ssubssequeennttlly ssued botth tthe Ciitty off Oaak Parrk and Deettrroiitt Ediison (Vooll.. VIIIIII att 1766—-84 (complpalianint)t )),, to recoveerr hiis clleean-—up cosstts ass weellll ass an addiittiionall $25,,000 fforr purrporrtteed ciiviill rriighttss viiollattiionss aand eemoottiionaall aand reputtattionall damaaggeess,, claiimming falsely,, in my view,, thatt the bllii ghtt ciittattiioons weerree iissssued becausse off ffiirreeppllaacce-—lleenngtth porrttii ons off tt ree ttrruunks and llarrge lliimmbs lleftt aftterr Ediison cutt down a tree on hiis propeerrtty 1 1//2 yeaarrss earrlliierr.. (S~ee 7/14/94 Deepp..,, Vooll.. X att 2228—-300;; 9//24//94 Hrrgg.. Trr.. att 45—-46;; Jack Abbeelllaa,, 11//15//94 Hrrgg.. Trr.. att 70—-81 & 96—-98;; Peett.. Ex.. 5 (Deettrroiitt Eddiison Trree Reemoovvaall Aggrreeeemeenntt,, siiggned by tt he pettiitiioonerr and speciifying thatt large logs woouulld be cutt into firreeplace length and leftt on the proppeerrttyy))).. Thee pettiitiioonerr ffaiilleed tto appeeaarr fforr hearrii ngss on diisscoverry aand ssuummaarry diispossiittion moottiioonnss.. Thhiis nuiisance suiitt waas setttled for a tottall of $750 ($375 frroomm Ediison and $375 frroomm the cCity of Oaak Parrk)).. 4.. On Apprriill 13,, 19922,, a deffauulltt jj udgmeenntt in the amoouunntt of $22,,000 waass enttered agaaiinsstt Mrr.. Esstton in a suiitt broughhtt by the Miicchhiigan Deeppaarrttmeenntt off Trreasury for nonpaymeenntt off ttaxes overr a period of seveerrall yeaarrss.. (Vooll.. VIIIIII att 157799)).. On Maarrcch 11,, 19911,, the pettitiioonerr fileed whhaatt I chaarriitablly conssttrue to be an artfully woorrded answeerr to the comppllaaiintt in whhiich he asserted thatt 1)) he waass nott liaable for Miicchhiigan taxes becausse he had nott been "aa permaanneenntt resii dentt off tthe Sttatte off Miicchhiigan ffrroomm 1973 thru 1990 and is nott subjjecctt and//orr liablle for Miicchhiigan IInnccoome Tax ii ndebttedness for tthiis perriioodd,," and tthatt 2)) he "ddiidd nott have ttaaxablle iinnccoomee ffrroomm 1973 tthru 1990 iincllusiivelly,, and he is nott liiaable for any alllleeged tt ax liabiillity to tthe Sstatte off
2 2 ( ( •• . • . c c o on n t ti i n n u ue e d d ) ) rreeffeerreencceed bbyy tthe vvoolluumee aand paagee nnuumbbeerr.. Trranssccrriiptt rrefferrencess tto tthe hearrii ngss helld befforre tt he paneell oonn Mrr Esstt on•ss currrrentt rreiinnssttaatteemmentt pettiittiioon arre rrefferrenced ass H"Hrgrg.. Trr.." ((e..g..,, 12//6//94 Hrrg.. Trr..)).. 22
Miicchhiiggaann,, whhaattsoever." (Vooll.. X att 15888--9933)).. In factt,, the pettiitiioonerr acknowlledged durriing the courrse off these proceediingss thatt he had been a residentt off Miicchiigan the enttiire tiimme exceepptt for a brriieff perriod he spentt in Caalliiforrniia frroom 1979 throough earrlly 1981,,3~ and thatt up unttiill the tiimme off hiis suspenssiion in 1987,, he had reporrttablle earnings in the state off Miicchhiigan frroomm hiis laaw practtiice.. (7/14/94 Deepp..,, Vooll.. X att 2252—-54 & 226600—-6633)).. The deffauulltt juudgmeenntt waass granted after the peettiitioonerr faileed to appeaarr for botth the meeddiiaattion and triall off the case.. (~Id.. att 15677—-7700)).. The pettiitioonerr failed to pay meeddiiaattiion fees associiatted wiitth this case unnttiill issssuuance of a show cause orrdeerr.. The pettitiioonner'ss moottiion to sett aside the deffauulltt jjuudgmeenntt waass diismiissed after he faileed to appearr att tt he hearrii ng on hiis moottiionn.. ((i~s4l.. at 15644—-6655)).. Hee tt hen appeeaalled to the Miicchiigan Coouurrtt off Appppeeaallss,, whhiich ulltiimaattelly dismiissed the case for lack off prrogrreessss,, assessing $200 in cossttss.. (,~lg.. at 15244)).. The judgmeenntt remaaiinss unppaaiid.. 5.. Mrr.. Esstton fileed whhaatt can onlly be descrribed as a friivvolous suiitt agaiinsstt Coomeerriica Baank and somee off its empplloyeees iin 1992 for haviing miissttakenlly identtiified him froom bank viideoss as the individuall who robbed the bank in MNaay off 19900.. (7/14/94 Deepp..,, Vooll.. X att 22377)).. Summaarry diispossiittiioon waass grantted iin favorr off tthe Bank and waass upheelld on apppeeaall.. ((Vooll.. IIX att 18844—-8855)).. 6.. Mrr.. Essttoen sued the Ciitty off Oaak Paarrk and varrious off its pollice officers in June of 1992 for damaaggeess and injuncttive rellief overr an incidentt att hiis residdence whhiich resullted,, in paarrtt,, iin hiis arrestt fforr diisorrderrlly condduucctt.. He alllleegged ciiviill rightts viiollattionss,, false arresstt,, false impprriisonmeenntt,, maalliicious prosecuuttiion,, ettc.. (Vooll.. VIIIIII att 1691-1712 (complpalainint)t))).. On July 8,, the pettiitioonerr moovveed for a deffaulltt jj udgmeenntt in the amoouunntt off $3 miillllion dollllars for the defendantts' failure to anssweerr hiis compplalaiinntt.. The pettiittiioonerr cerrttiifiieed on hiis moottiion praecipe thatt he had conttacted the Ciity Attttorney,, Buurrtton Shiifmaann,, for concurrrence and been refused.. (GGA Exx.. 9)).. Deeffeenddaannttss oppossed tthe pettiittiioonner's moottiionn,, and ffolllloowwiing a hearrii ng befforre Oaakklland Ciirrcuiitt Judge Hiillda Gaaggee,, tt he deffaulltt waass sett asiide.. The jj udge exprressslly ffound iin herr Orrddeerr tthatt tthe pettiittiioonerr had maade a "ffaallsse cerrttifiiccatiioon thatt he soughtt concurrreennccee" in hiis moottiionn.. (Vooll.. VIIIIII att 1627—-28 & 16600—-788;; Puzzzzuuoolili,, 9//27//94 Hrrgg.. Trr.. at 92—-10O0)..4~
3 3 Even this assertion is queessttionaabbllee,, since Mrr.. Essttoen also ttessttiiffeed att hiiss rreeiinssttaatteemeentt heeaarriing tt hatt hhee waass b"boorrnn iin tt hee Sttaattee off Miicchhiiggaann.. Thhiiss iiss myy hhoomee allll myy lliiffee.." ((1122//66//9944 Hrrgg.. Trr.. att 17)).. 4 4Tmhee Ciitty ullttiimattelly settttlled tthiis case fforr $4,,0000..
3
I do nott conssiiderr the above acttions to connssttiittutte a mooddeell off behaavviiorr eitherr woorrtthy orr desiirable of imiittattion.. I reallize thatt tt hese actts perrhapss do nott riise tto tthe llevell of miissconndduucctt whhiich tthe pettiitioonerr demoonnststrraatted between 1987 and miid—-1990 and for whhiich a prriiorr paneell deniied hiimm rreiinnsttaatteemmentt iin 19911.. Neevveertrthheelleessss,, II do nott bellieve the absence off outtrightt crimiinnaall,, assauullttiive,, orr ottherr illleegall behaviiorr quaalliifies one as fit to be safely reeccoommmeended to the pubblliic as a comppeetetenntt,, ethiicaall,, and responnssiiblle prraccttiitioneerr.. Mrr.. Essttons's varrious false stateemeennttss,, hiis pattttern off failiinng to appeaarr for schedulled courrtt hearrings on hiis own casess,, hiis propeennssiitty for filliinng friivvoloous orr,, att besstt,, maarrggiinnaalllly meerriittorrious plleadiinggss,, and hiis maany unpaaiid judgmeennttss and assessmeenntts weeiigh heavviilly agaiinsstt him.. In addiittion,, I waass trooublled by Mrr.. Es toon'ss conduucctt and staatteementts durring the seveerraall days off teessttimimoony on hiis reinnsttaatteemmentt pettiition.. Hee engaged in teempeerrameennttaall outtbuurrssttss,, whhiich iinclluuded accusii ng tthe Grriievance Coommmisisssiion ((as he routtii nelly accusses polliice offfiicerrs,, attttoorrneyss,, and jj udgeess)) off acttiing ii n bad faith,, diiscrimiinaattiionn,, and uneetthiicall behaavviioorr.. Att one poiinntt,, he railed att Chhaaiirman Baaiieerrss,, afterr the Chhaaiirman sustainned an objjecttion to hiis queessttiioniing,, "YYoouu dont't waanntt the factts on the recorrd.. Thaatt'ss the probleem wiitth you.." (See.. e..g. •,• 11//15//94 Hrrg.. Trr.. att 15—-16 & 1266—-2288)).. oOn occassiion,, Mrr.. Essttoen waass also belllliigerentt and hossttiille,, botth undeerr queessttii onii ng ((12//6// 94 Hrrgg.. Trr.. att 40--42 & 73--74 (statiinng he woouulld look onlly att Chaaiirman Baaiieerrss and nott att counsseell fforr tthe AGCC,, sayiing I"I dont't even waanntt tto lloook att thatt racist")),, and in hiis queessttioning of hiis wiittnesses (~Id.. att 81—-89 (accusing a wiittness frroom the Waayynnee Coouunntty Prrosecuttor'ss Offfiice off exhiibiitting a"anniimoossiityy" and haviing a "ppeerrssoonnaall vendetttaa" agaaiinsstt him,, off "ttrryiing to ruin my careeeerr" and off haviing "uunnwwrirtitten criteria or polliicies to try to gett rid of Mrr.. Essttoen so thatt he coulld nott be reinstated into the prraccttice off laaw in the Sttatte off Miicchhiigaan..")).. Forr allll of the foreegoing reasonss,, I do nott conssiider Mrr.. Esstton to have carrrii ed hiis burrden of esttabllii shii ng by cllearr and conviinciing eviidence tthatt he iis fit tto be reii nsttatted tto tthe practtiice off ll aw iin accordance wiitth MCR 9.123 (B) ((5)),, (6)),, and (7))..