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. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT