by Paul Alan Levy
Last month I wrote about a proceeding in which Michigan’s Attorney Grievance Commission was investigating Steven Gursten, a Michigan lawyer who had criticized Dr. Rosalind Griffin, a member of the state disciplinary apparatus, for perjuring herself in expert testimony in one of his cases. I argued that the very process of conducting such investigations has a chilling effect on lawyer bloggers, and suggested that the Grievance Commission should dismiss the case out of hand on First Amendment grounds.
I was pleased to learn this afternoon that, in a letter dated one week after my blog post on the subject, the Grievance Commission denied the grievance on the ground that Gursten’s blog was protected by the First Amendment as well as Michigan’s own constitution. And unlike a few previous cases, in which dismissals of complaints over lawyers' extra-judicial speech were accompanied by ominous warnings to the lawyers to watch themselves in the future, this dismissal simply recognized the constitutional protection.
I also note one oddity – inspection of the Commission's letter to Griffin reveals that it was dated February 4, but not received by Gursten’s counsel until February 16. I have asked Grievance Commission administrator Alan Gershel for an explanation of this discrepancy.
Comments