"Indianapolis lawyer Michael A. Wilkins wants to take his free-speech case to the top," reports the Indianapolis Star in a brief item this morning in its "Behind Closed Doors" column. Access it here - it is the second story down.
You may recall the case, which received national attention. Ice Miller Attorney Wilkins was initially suspended from the practice of law for one month by the Indiana Supreme Court because of a footnote in a brief.
Here is coverage of the initial decision, from the National Law Journal. and here is the abstract to a Nov. 3, 2002 NY Times story:
Michael A Wilkins, lawyer in Indianapolis, is barred from Indiana courts for 30 days after State Supreme Court rules that footnote that appeared in brief he wrote criticizing decision of state court of appeals undermined public's confidence in administration of justice; decision is unusual, given tame language in footnote, which was not even written by Wilkins, severity of penalty and fact that one of justices who decided Wilkins's case, Robert D Rucker, was on appeals court when it made decision criticized in footnote (M) Michael A. Wilkins, a lawyer in Indianapolis, will not be welcome in the Indiana courts for 30 days starting in early December. The Indiana Supreme Court, in a 3-to-2 decision, disciplined Mr. Wilkins on Tuesday, ruling that a footnote, in a brief, that criticized a lower court undermined ''the public's confidence in the administration of justice.'' The decision is unusual, legal ethics experts said, given the tame language in the footnote, the severity of the penalty and the fact that one of the justices who decided Mr. Wilkins's case was involved in the case the footnote cited and possibly had a conflict of interest.On rehearing, as the Times reported Feb. 5, 2003, "The Supreme Court replaced its earlier 30-day suspension of the lawyer, Michael A. Wilkins, with a reprimand. A justice in the majority in the earlier ruling, Robert D. Rucker, did not participate in decision. The justice had served on the appeals court panel that Mr. Wilkins criticized."
Here is a link to the initial Supreme Court October 29, 2002 ruling, the January 3, 2003 motion for recusal and the Feb. 4, 2003 rehearing.
Finally, a petition for writ of certiori has been filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Docket Number is 02-1616 and the status may be accessed here. Although the docket indicates that briefs have been filed, I am unable to locate online copies.
[More] The National Law Journal article mentioned above contains this statement:
In 1997, Wilkins signed on as local counsel to Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. in a dispute with an Indiana bowling alley over insurance coverage. A three-judge panel of the court of appeals ruled against Michigan Mutual in 1999, with Rucker concurring. Michigan Mutual's lead counsel, Jeffrey R. Learned of the Southfield, Mich., firm Morrison, Mahoney & Miller, wrote a brief urging the Supreme Court to take review. In a footnote, Learned wrote that the court of appeals opinion "is so factually and legally inaccurate that one is left to wonder whether the Court of Appeals was determined to find for [Michigan Mutual's opponent] and then said whatever was necessary to reach that conclusion." The Supreme Court declined to review the case and struck the brief from the record, describing the footnote (in 1999) as "a scurrilous and intemperate attack on the integrity of the Court of Appeals."Here is the Indiana Supreme Court's March 5, 1999 Per Curiam ruling in that case, Michigan Mutual v. Sports, Inc. Posted by Marcia Oddi at July 27, 2003 11:30 AM