In Re Lumumba
113 Mich. App. 804, 318 N.W.2d 574 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's failure to appear for a scheduled court date does not constitute contempt of court if the failure was not a result of willful disregard for or disobedience of the court's authority, but rather resulted from a good faith, albeit negligent, effort to secure substitute counsel.
Facts:
- Appellant, an attorney named Lumumba, was appointed to represent William Talley in Detroit Recorder’s Court.
- Lumumba had a scheduling conflict due to a murder trial he was handling in Chicago, and he informed Talley that a substitute attorney might be necessary.
- In June 1980, Lumumba arranged for another attorney, James McGinnis, to substitute for him at Talley's trial scheduled for July 7, 1980.
- Due to neglect by Lumumba's staff, McGinnis did not receive the case file until approximately one week before the trial.
- Both Lumumba's staff and McGinnis made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the client, Talley, prior to the trial date.
- On the trial date, McGinnis appeared in court, informed the clerk he was substituting, and explained he had been unable to contact Talley.
- The court clerk, after speaking with someone on the phone, told McGinnis he could leave.
- Shortly thereafter, Talley appeared in court, but with no attorney present, the trial had to be postponed.
Procedural Posture:
- The Detroit Recorder’s Court, a trial court, held appellant, an attorney, in contempt of court for his failure to appear on a scheduled trial date.
- The trial court imposed a fine of $250.
- Appellant appealed the contempt finding as of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's failure to appear at a scheduled trial, which stems from a good faith effort to arrange for substitute counsel but violates local court rules and results in a postponement, constitute a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's authority sufficient for a contempt of court finding?
Opinions:
Majority - Bronson, J.
No. An attorney's failure to appear does not constitute a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's authority sufficient for contempt where the attorney made a good faith effort to secure a substitute. To be found in contempt, an attorney's conduct must demonstrate a 'wilful disregard or disobedience of the authority or orders of the court,' as established in People v. Matish. Here, although the appellant violated local court rules regarding substitutions and his firm was negligent in transferring the case file, his actions do not rise to the level of willful disobedience. He informed his client of the potential conflict, actively secured substitute counsel, and had no reason to believe his substitute would be dismissed by the clerk. The court found that the contempt charge appeared to stem from the unfortunate results of the violations rather than the acts themselves, and that punishing a good faith effort as contempt would be improper.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high mens rea (mental state) requirement for attorney contempt in Michigan, solidifying the precedent set by People v. Matish. It clearly distinguishes between mere negligence or procedural missteps, even if they disrupt court proceedings, and the willful defiance necessary for a contempt finding. The ruling highlights a gap in the court's power, noting the lack of statutory authority to impose lesser sanctions like fines for negligent but non-contemptuous conduct. This may influence how trial courts handle attorney scheduling errors and could prompt legislative or court rule changes to address such situations.
