Listen to this article
A U.S. District Court judge has found an attorney to be barred by the abstention doctrine from bringing suit over a disciplinary proceeding before the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission (ACG).
The plaintiff attorney brought suit against defendants ACG, its Board of Commissioners and Michael Goetz, in his official capacity as the Administrator of the ACG, alleging violations of his First and 14th Amendment rights. The suit involved a “Request for Investigation” that was filed against the plaintiff attorney by Jane Doe, a non-party who lived out of state.
“[The plaintiff’s attorney], who is Jewish, believes that by issuing the Request, the AGC is weaponizing its authority and the Rules of Professional Conduct against Jewish attorneys. He asserts that these Requests are being used to ‘muzzle and penalize’ him for speaking out against judicial actions he feels are anti-Semitic and are a violation of his right of free speech under the First Amendment, and of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment,” Judge Shalina D. Kumar pointed out.
“Defendants argue that the Court should abstain from deciding the issues raised by [the plaintiff’s attorney] under the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), as applied in Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982), and the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Fieger v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 740 (6th Cir.1996),” the judge noted.
“The abstention doctrine, articulated in Younger and its progeny, requires federal courts not to interfere in ongoing state proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Younger abstention has since been applied in the context of challenges in federal court to attorney disciplinary proceedings,” Kumar wrote.
“The Court finds that the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Fieger warrants dismissal of this action. The attorney disciplinary proceedings at issue in this case — specifically, the AGC’s disciplinary investigation into [the plaintiff’s attorney] alleged misconduct — are state judicial proceedings. … Additionally, the proceedings in this case are also ‘ongoing’ for the purposes of Younger abstention,” the judge found.
“Next, this case meets the second element for Younger abstention because it clearly involves an ongoing state proceeding that implicates important state interests. … Lastly, the third requirement for Younger abstention is also satisfied here because [the plaintiff’s attorney] has adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges,” he added.
“Accordingly, the Court finds that it should abstain in this matter under Younger. The attorney disciplinary proceedings at issue in this case are ongoing state judicial proceedings and those proceedings implicate an important state interest and provide an opportunity to raise constitutional challenges. ‘A district court deciding to abstain under Younger has the option of either dismissing the case without prejudice or holding the case in abeyance.’ Eidson v. State of Tennessee Dept. of Children’s Services, 510 F.3d 631, 638 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting Coles v. Granville, 448 F.3d 853, 866 (6th Cir.2006). In Fieger, the Sixth Circuit remanded the action to the district court with instructions that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Fieger, 74 F.3d at 750–751. Given the ongoing state proceedings and [the plaintiff’s attorney] opportunity to raise his constitutional challenges in the ongoing state court proceedings, this Court finds it is appropriate to dismiss [the plaintiff’s attorney’s] claims without prejudice,” Kumar concluded.
The 28-page decision is Susselman v. Attorney Grievance Commission; MiLW No. 02-110338.
