Summary
holding that the circuit courts and this Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review claims regarding disciplinary actions of the AGC
Summary of this case from Thompkins v. ZamlerOpinion
Docket No. 83802.
Decided March 26, 1986. Leave to appeal denied, 426 Mich. 859.
John F. VanBolt, for petitioner. Roger J. Oeming, in propria persona, for respondent.
Respondent appeals from an order of the Saginaw Circuit Court granting accelerated judgment in favor of petitioner pursuant to GCR 1963, 116.1(2), now MCR 2.116(C)(4), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
On March 13, 1984, an order was entered by the Attorney Discipline Board suspending respondent's license to practice law in the State of Michigan for 121 days. Both petitioner and respondent then filed applications for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court within twenty days after that order was entered. The applications and motions for reconsideration were denied by the Supreme Court. Grievance Administrator v Oeming, 419 Mich. 1205 (1984).
Respondent filed a claim of appeal in the Saginaw Circuit Court seeking a review of the order of discipline. He also sought an order staying the suspension of his license to practice law.
Petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for accelerated judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 116.1(2), now MCR 2.116(C)(4), alleging that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the disciplining of attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of Michigan. The circuit judge granted petitioner's motion for accelerated judgment and denied respondent's request for an order staying the suspension of his license.
In Sternberg v State Bar of Michigan, 384 Mich. 588, 593; 185 N.W.2d 395 (1971), the Court stated:
Under the new State Bar disciplinary procedure, there is no role for the circuit courts or for the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.