ILNews

Court: Michigan lawyer to stay away for 2 years

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An embattled Michigan attorney is barred for two years from taking any new cases in Hoosier courts, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.

Justices issued a per curiam opinion today in disciplinary action In the Matter of Geoffrey N. Fieger, No. 98S00-0609-DI-340, finding the attorney committed misconduct by making material misrepresentations in a sworn application for temporary admission to St. Joseph Circuit Court in late 2005. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justices Theodore Boehm and Robert Rucker agreed on the two-year penalty. Justice Brent Dickson wanted to bar Geoffrey Fieger permanently, while Justice Frank Sullivan opted to follow the conclusion of a hearing officer who'd found in favor of the attorney.

The Indiana Disciplinary Commission filed a complaint in late 2006 against Fieger, who isn't regularly admitted to practice here but has sought temporary admission at times - including earlier this year when he handled a federal trial in Indianapolis involving a Ball State University shooting.

Fieger was accused of violating state ethical rules by lying about past or then-present disciplinary actions against him in other jurisdictions, something that was asked when he applied for limited admission to the Indiana bar for a criminal case.

Fieger has been licensed in Michigan, Arizona, and Florida since 1980. He asked to be admitted as pro hac vice as co-counsel for a plaintiff in St. Joseph County, admitting under oath that "formal" disciplinary proceedings were not presently pending against him anywhere. However, he had a disciplinary action appeal pending before the Michigan Supreme Court at the time, his Arizona license had remained suspended since 1993 for not meeting mandatory continuing legal education requirements, and other ethical violation accusations had resulted in his censure elsewhere.

In today's Indiana action, justices chastised Fieger for trying to manipulate the rules and use technicalities to disguise his disclosure inadequacies - such as adding the word "formal" to the language of the disclosure rule to protect himself from a charge of dishonesty in unfiled complaints; and that no "proceedings" were underway.

"In any case, the change in wording shows Respondent gave careful consideration to the scope of his duty to disclose and chose not to mention the Michigan action," the opinion states about both examples. "There is nothing in the rule or Indiana law to suggest that the term (proceeding) can be interpreted to include loopholes of any sort. Respondent had no authority to alter the language required by the Disclosure Rule to narrow its scope or create a loophole."

In issuing its sanction, the court relied on Matter of Fletcher, 694 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. 1998) that involved a temporarily admitted attorney misleading a judge that clients weren't at a location when deputies attempted to serve them there. That penalty was two years, also.

Fieger rose to prominence in the 1990s as suicide advocate Dr. Jack Kevorkian's lawyer. He has since risen to the status as a millionaire attorney and leader of a high profile firm specializing in personal injury suits. He unsuccessfully ran for Michigan governor in 1998. His latest stretch of disciplinary actions that were ultimately reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court involved comments he made on his public radio show comparing some of that state's appellate judges as "Nazis" for ruling against him in a case.

The Indiana disciplinary sanction comes at the same time Fieger faces federal campaign contribution charges in U.S. District Court in Detroit. He and his law firm partner are accused of paying employees "bonuses" to cover contributions made by others to Democrat John Edwards in the 2004 presidential campaign. That trial has been ongoing for 18 days and is expected to go to a jury next week.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT