Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 16 > Issue 1 (1917)
Attorneys - Disobedience of Order of Suspension - What Acts Constitute - Defendants had been suspended from practice "in all the courts of this state" for one year. During suspension they had continued to maintain a law office with the usual signs on the doors and windows, used envelopes and stationery with their names printed thereon as Attorneys at Law, and permitted their names to be inserted as attorneys at law in telephone and city directories. Defendant M had caused the preparation of a complaint, affidavit, and bond in attachment under his direction and had them filed in a suit in the District Court by one K, a licensed attorney, and had represented A, administrator of an estate, before the Probate Court. Defendant W drew up a mortgage, charged a fee therefor, examined abstracts of title, passed upon them, and appeared at a hearing before the State Engineers, there examining witnesses and interposing objections to ,evidence. Held, that these acts constituted contempt of court; that the act of M in appearing before the Probate Court alone constituted a contempt of court. State v. Marron; Same v. Wood (N. Mex. 1917), 167 Pac. 9.
Michigan Law Review,
Recent Important Decisions,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol16/iss1/5