When appealing contempt sanctions, it is unwise to attack the trial court.
Reported here. See pages 58-59 here, or just read below:
IV. APPELLATE SANCTIONSGiven the disrespectful and blatantly contemptuous statements made by attorney Charron in his appellate briefs regarding the trial court, we find the imposition of sanctions in accordance with MCR 7.216(C)(1)(b) (permitting actual or punitive damages or other disciplinary actions when a brief is “grossly lacking in the requirements of propriety”) to be appropriate. See also Grievance Administrator v Fieger, 476 Mich 231, 250-252; 719 NW2d 123 (2006). Specifically, this determination is premised on the numerous ad homenem and pejorative comments made and endorsed by Charron as the signatory on his appellate briefs, which include but are not limited to such outrageous and unprofessional statements as, “When the judiciary acts as the bitch for complainant, we get rulings like this.” (Emphasis added.) Such derogatory and undeserved comments serve no legitimate purpose, as they fail to advance Charron’s legal theories and violate MCR 7.212(C)(6), which requires an appellant’s brief to contain “[a]ll material facts, both favorable and unfavorable, [to be] fairly stated without argument or bias.” (Emphasis added.)Therefore, and in accordance with the authority granted by MCL 600.2445(1), we sanction attorney Charron one thousand dollars ($1,000) for his failure to abide by the rules established for this Court and the civility expected by practitioners of the law. See MRPC 3.5(d) (barring “undignified or discourteous conduct toward the tribunal”). Attorney Charron’s privilege to file any further pleadings in this Court is suspended until such time as the imposed sanction is satisfied.