Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Docket No. 19075.

Attorney(S)

Louis Rosenzweig, for plaintiff. Virginia Cramer, in propria persona.

Judges

CHURCHILL, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

State Bar of Michigan v. Cramer, Docket No. 19075 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 1974)

Factual and Procedural Background

On January 5, 1973, the Wayne County Circuit Court (Judge John D. O'Hair) entered a permanent injunction restraining defendant Virginia Cramer and others from the unauthorized practice of law, specifically prohibiting (1) holding themselves out to the public as qualified to render advice and services to persons seeking a divorce in Michigan courts; (2) rendering counsel and services to persons seeking divorce judgments in Michigan courts; and (3) furnishing or offering kits, forms or documents with assistance in their completion to persons seeking divorce judgments in Michigan courts.

After enforcement proceedings, the State Bar of Michigan filed a petition alleging that Cramer violated that injunction, specifically by advising Diane Carol Baker concerning her divorce application in Wayne County Circuit Court. Judge O'Hair issued an order to show cause and later, following a testimonial hearing on December 19, 1973, found Cramer in contempt. The contempt order imposed a $250 fine, $125 costs (with default confinement to the Detroit House of Corrections for 5 days if unpaid), and an additional 5-day confinement commencing January 7, 1974. Cramer appealed the contempt adjudication; this Court affirmed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether judges of the courts of record are disqualified from acting judicially in actions in which the State Bar of Michigan is a party because the judges are members of the State Bar of Michigan.
Whether the January 5, 1973 permanent injunction was a valid order that the defendant was required to obey.
Whether the defendant violated the injunctive order of January 5, 1973 (i.e., whether the contempt finding was supported by the evidence).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Defendant's) Arguments

She sought to challenge the validity of the January 5, 1973 injunction.
She asserted that each member of this Court's panel was disqualified from hearing the appeal because the State Bar of Michigan is a party and the judges are members of the State Bar.

Plaintiff's (State Bar of Michigan) Position

The State Bar elected to disregard the disqualification issue in its brief (i.e., it did not press an argument respecting the disqualification claim).
The State Bar prosecuted enforcement proceedings and filed the petition charging violation of the permanent injunction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Town Country Motors, Inc v Local Union No 328, 355 Mich. 26, 48; 94 N.W.2d 442, 453 (1959)	That an individual may not collaterally attack the propriety of an injunctive order through contempt proceedings; if a court had jurisdiction to issue an order, it must be obeyed unless overturned on direct appeal.	The court relied on this principle to reject collateral attack on the January 5, 1973 injunction and to sustain the contempt finding for violation of that injunction.
Cross Co v UAW Local No 155 (AFL-CIO), 371 Mich. 184, 195; 123 N.W.2d 215, 220 (1963)	Support for the rule that orders of a court having jurisdiction must be obeyed and cannot be collaterally attacked in contempt proceedings.	Used by the court to reinforce the principle that the injunction could not be collaterally attacked in the contempt proceedings and to uphold compliance obligations.
Berry Pontiac, Inc v Burke, 19 Mich. App. 648, 652; 173 N.W.2d 243, 246 (1969)	Also cited in support of the rule against collateral attack of injunctive orders in contempt proceedings.	Applied to support the conclusion that the defendant was required to obey the injunction and that contempt adjudication was appropriate for violations.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in three parts.

First, addressing the disqualification claim, the court explained that under the Michigan Constitution (Art. 6, §§ 1 and 19), judges of courts of record must be licensed to practice law, and statutory and supreme court rule provisions make membership in the State Bar of Michigan mandatory for judges. The opinion cited MCLA 600.901; MSA 27A.901 and Rule No. 3 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar to show that membership is not voluntary and that judges are required by law to be active members. Based on these authorities, the court concluded that membership in the State Bar does not disqualify judges from acting when the State Bar is a party; rather, judges have a duty to decide such cases.

Second, on the validity of the January 5, 1973 injunction, the court stated the legal principle (supported by cited precedents) that a person may not collaterally attack an injunctive order via contempt proceedings: if a court had jurisdiction to make the order, it must be obeyed until overturned on direct appeal. The court observed that the circuit court had statutory jurisdiction to enter orders relating to the unauthorized practice of law, citing MCLA 600.916; MSA 27A.916 (and related statutory authority). The opinion noted that the defendant had appealed the injunction but that the appeal was dismissed without prejudice for failure to forward a complete transcript (GCR 1963, 812.2(a)). Accordingly, the injunction remained in force and was binding on the defendant.

Third, on whether the defendant violated the injunction, the court reviewed the contempt hearing record (despite the defendant not pressing that issue in her brief) and concluded there was more than adequate evidence to sustain the trial judge's finding of contempt for violating the permanent injunction. Based on that review, the court affirmed the contempt judgment.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Affirmed.

Consequences and direct effects:

The trial court's judgment finding Virginia Cramer in contempt for violating the January 5, 1973 permanent injunction is affirmed.
The contempt judgment imposed a $250 fine and $125 costs (with default confinement to the Detroit House of Corrections for 5 days if unpaid), plus an additional 5-day confinement beginning January 7, 1974; execution of sentence was stayed for 20 days after the release date of the opinion to permit the defendant to pursue appellate remedies.

Broader implications: The court applied settled principles (as cited) that injunctive orders of a court with jurisdiction must be obeyed and cannot be collaterally attacked in contempt proceedings, and it held that mandatory State Bar membership of judges does not disqualify them from adjudicating cases in which the State Bar is a party. The opinion does not purport to announce a novel legal rule beyond these applications of existing constitutional provisions, statutes, rules, and precedent.

Show full summary ...

STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN v. CRAMER

CHURCHILL, J.

On January 5, 1973, the Honorable John D. O'Hair, Wayne County Circuit Judge, signed a judgment permanently restraining the defendant, Virginia Cramer, and others from the unauthorized practice of law, and specifically from:

"(1) Holding themselves out to the public as qualified to render advice and service to persons interested in obtaining a divorce in the courts of Michigan;

"(2) Rendering counsel and service to persons seeking to dissolve a marital relationship by obtaining a judgment of divorce in the courts of the State of Michigan; and,

"(3) Furnishing or offering to furnish kits, forms or documents with assistance in their completion or execution, to persons seeking to dissolve a marital relationship by obtaining a judgment of divorce in the courts of the State of Michigan."

After a series of enforcement proceedings the State Bar of Michigan, plaintiff herein, filed a petition charging the defendant with violation of the aforesaid permanent injunction generally, and specifically with respect to advisory services rendered to one Diane Carol Baker in connection with her application for a divorce in Wayne County Circuit Court. On November 30, 1973, Judge O'Hair issued an order to show cause, scheduling the hearing on the petition on Friday, December 14, 1973. The petition and order to show cause clearly informed the defendant that punishment for contempt was a possibility.

Following a testimonial hearing on December 19, 1973, Judge O'Hair made an order finding and adjudging her to be in contempt for violating the injunctive order of January 5, 1973. As punishment she was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and costs of $125 forthwith and in default thereof be confined to the Detroit House of Corrections for a period of 5 days, and in addition thereto that she be confined for 5 days commencing January 7, 1974 at 9 a.m. It is from this order that she appeals.

Representing herself on appeal, she attempts to challenge the validity of the injunction contained in the judgment of January 5, 1973, and she asserts that members of this panel of the Court of Appeals are disqualified to hear this appeal because the State Bar of Michigan is a party and because each of us is a member of the State Bar of Michigan.

Are judges of the courts of record disqualified to act judicially in actions in which the State Bar of Michigan is a party because the judges are members of the State Bar of Michigan?

The State Bar of Michigan elected to disregard this issue in their brief. Because of the novelty of the issue and because of a general misunderstanding of the nature of the State Bar of Michigan, we believe this issue merits our attention.

The 1963 Constitution of the State of Michigan, art 6, § 1, provides:

"The judicial power of the state is vested exclusively in one court of justice which shall be divided into one supreme court, one court of appeals, one trial court of general jurisdiction known as the circuit court, one probate court, and courts of limited jurisdiction that the legislature may establish by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house."

In addition, art 6, § 19 of that same Constitution provides as follows:

"The supreme court, the court of appeals, the circuit court, the probate court and other courts designated as such by the legislature shall be courts of record and each shall have a common seal. Justices and judges of courts of record must be persons who are licensed to practice law in this state. No person shall be elected or appointed to a judicial office after reaching the age of 70 years." (Emphasis added)

We also have a statute which provides:

"The state bar of Michigan is a public body corporate, the membership of which consists of all persons who are now and hereafter licensed to practice law in this state. The members of the state bar of Michigan are officers of the courts of this state, and have the exclusive right to designate themselves as `attorneys and counselors,' or `attorneys at law,' or `lawyers.' No person is authorized to practice law in this state unless he complies with the requirements of the supreme court with regard thereto." MCLA 600.901; MSA 27A.901.

Finally, Rule No. 3 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan, promulgated by the Supreme Court, provides:

"Members of the State Bar shall be divided into two classes, namely, active members and inactive members. The class of active members shall include all members who have not specifically requested to be enrolled as inactive members. Any member who is not engaged in the practice of law or the administration of justice in this state may, if he so elects and files written application with the secretary, be classified as an inactive member. Any inactive member may, on filing written application with the secretary and payment of the required dues, become an active member. No inactive member shall practice law, vote or hold office in the State Bar. Members who are judges or who serve as court personnel shall register as active members. Any person not an active member who practices law shall be subject to discipline."

Membership in the State Bar of Michigan is not voluntary. Every member of this panel of the Court of Appeals, every Judge of the Court of Appeals and every person assigned to serve on the Court of Appeals is required by law to be an active member of the State Bar of Michigan.

It is our opinion that the members of this panel not only are not disqualified to decide this case, but instead have a clear duty to do so.

Was the order of January 5, 1973, a valid order?

An individual may not attack the propriety of an injunctive order collaterally through contempt proceedings. If a court has jurisdiction to make an order, the order must be obeyed unless overturned on direct appeal. Town Country Motors, Inc v Local Union No 328, 355 Mich. 26, 48; 94 N.W.2d 442, 453 (1959); Cross Co v UAW Local No 155 (AFL-CIO), 371 Mich. 184, 195; 123 N.W.2d 215, 220 (1963); Berry Pontiac, Inc v Burke, 19 Mich. App. 648, 652; 173 N.W.2d 243, 246 (1969).

The circuit court had statutory jurisdiction to decide the issue.

"It is unlawful for any person to practice law, or to engage in the law business, or in any manner whatsoever to lead others to believe that he is authorized to practice law or to engage in the law business, or in any manner whatsoever to represent or designate himself as an attorney and counselor, attorney at law, or lawyer, unless the person so doing is regularly licensed and authorized to practice law in this state. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of contempt of the supreme court and of the circuit court of the county in which the violation occurred, and upon conviction is punishable as provided by law. This section does not apply to a person who is duly licensed and authorized to practice law in another state while temporarily in this state and engaged in a particular matter." MCLA 600.916; MSA 27A.916; see also MCLA 600.1701(6); MSA 27A.1701(6). (Emphasis added.)

The defendant did appeal the order of January 5, 1973, but the appeal was dismissed without prejudice for her failure to forward a complete transcript. GCR 1963, 812.2(a).

It is our opinion therefore that the defendant was required to comply with the permanent injunction issued January 5, 1973.

III

Did defendant violate the injunctive order of January 5, 1973?

This was her real appeal issue in the proceedings but she did not take up the issue in her brief on appeal. We have nevertheless reviewed the transcript of the contempt proceedings and conclude that there was more than adequate evidence to sustain the trial judge's finding of contempt.

The judgment of contempt and punishment therefore is affirmed. Execution of sentence is stayed for 20 days after the release date of this opinion to give defendant an opportunity to pursue her appellate remedies.

Affirmed.

All concurred.

STATE BAR v. CRAMER