William A. Ortman v. Philip Thomas, John Van Bolt, Michigan National Corp., Robert Mylod, David Vigna, Douglas Bernstein, Comerica Bank, Lynn Allen, Gerald Poisson, Donald Slavin, John Ronayne, Iii, Chester E. Kasiborski, Jr., Kasiborski, Ronayne and Flaska, Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, George E. Bushnell, Jr., David Breck, Frederick Harris, Anna Diggs Taylor, United States of America, Alan Falk, John Doe(s), Individually, Jointly and Severally

Citations: 99 F.3d 807; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 29045Docket: 95-1975

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; November 6, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

William A. Ortman, a disbarred attorney, appeals two judgments from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In the first appeal (No. 95-1975), Ortman contests a summary judgment and dismissal of his damages claim against multiple defendants for alleged unconstitutional actions. In the second appeal (No. 95-2306), he challenges sanctions imposed under FED. R. CIV. P. 11 for engaging in vexatious litigation. Ortman is representing himself in the appeals, which the court decided without oral argument.

The litigation's background reveals that Ortman filed an initial complaint on December 19, 1994, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, later amending it to include 21 defendants categorized into four groups. These include individuals connected to a 1978 lawsuit he filed against Michigan National Corporation, those involved in attorney discipline complaints against him, and others, including a federal judge and a complainant with the Michigan State Bar. The original events stem from a case where Ortman sued Michigan National for conspiracy after a client attempted to stop payment on a check for attorney fees. The court affirmed both judgments against Ortman.

On July 21, 1989, Judge Frederick Harris of the 47th District Court set aside a default judgment in favor of Michigan National and scheduled the case for trial. Mr. Ortman failed to appear for his deposition and subsequently informed the court he would not participate, leading to the dismissal of his lawsuit with prejudice on October 3, 1989. Ortman appealed this dismissal and filed a second action to renew the default judgment, but on July 11, 1990, Judge David Breck affirmed the dismissal and granted summary disposition to Michigan National. Following the denial of his rehearing motion, Ortman appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which found his actions to be vexatious and remanded for a sanctions hearing.

At the sanctions hearing, where Ortman did not appear, Judge Breck awarded Michigan National $26,539.26 in costs and attorney fees. Michigan National's in-house counsel initiated a writ of garnishment that allowed the recovery of $1,412 from Ortman’s account through Comerica Bank. Ortman contended that the writ ratified wrongful acts and fraudulent judgments, leading him to sue multiple parties, including Michigan National and its representatives, as well as the Oakland County Circuit Court Clerk and employees.

In 1993, two complaints were filed against Ortman by the Administrator of the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission related to failing to return escrow funds and vexatious litigation in the Michigan National case. The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board appointed panels to address these complaints. After a hearing, Ortman was found to have violated ethical rules and was initially disbarred on May 26, 1995. He later petitioned for review, arguing the disciplinary system's constitutionality, resulting in a three-year suspension on December 4, 1995. The ADB characterized Ortman's litigation conduct as vexatious and akin to professional misconduct, and his subsequent petition for review was deemed untimely.

Mr. Ortman is contesting the constitutionality of Michigan's attorney disciplinary system and alleges a conspiracy involving multiple defendants, including members of the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Attorney Discipline Board, to violate his civil rights. In a prior 1991 lawsuit, he named over fifty defendants, including Michigan Supreme Court Justices and various local entities. The court, led by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, granted summary judgment to defendants and imposed $40,000 in sanctions due to the litigation's vexatious nature. Judge Taylor later testified against Ortman, who claims her actions violated his constitutional rights and contributed to a conspiracy preventing him from practicing law.

One defendant, David Falk, requested an investigation into Ortman, leading to an admonishment from the Attorney Grievance Commission. Ortman alleges, without evidence, that Falk influenced court employees against him. The defendants sought dismissal or summary judgment, to which Ortman minimally responded. The district court dismissed the case and imposed $24,809.99 in sanctions, permanently enjoining Ortman from filing related civil lawsuits. Ortman appealed both judgments, and the appeals court consolidated the cases. Most of Ortman's appeal arguments center on a broad conspiracy theory involving legal professionals, which lacks specificity to withstand dismissal or summary judgment.

Mr. Ortman's briefs contain incomplete quotations from legal decisions that do not support his position and are largely irrelevant to the case's legal issues. He repeatedly argues that summary judgment infringes on the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial and claims the Michigan attorney discipline system is unconstitutional due to the Michigan Constitution's prohibition on delegating judicial power. Both arguments are deemed meritless. The district court found Ortman's claims against several defendants to be frivolous and baseless, determined that judicial defendants were absolutely immune, and ruled it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to the Michigan attorney discipline system. Additionally, the claim against Comerica was viewed as an improper challenge to a valid state court judgment. Following a comprehensive review of proceedings dating back to 1978, the court deemed Ortman's repeated filing of frivolous lawsuits warranted monetary sanctions of $24,809.99 in attorney fees and costs, along with a permanent injunction. While the record supports the monetary sanctions, the court found the injunction too broad, stating that an individual cannot be entirely barred from filing lawsuits. Instead, it modified the injunction to require Ortman to obtain certification from a United States Magistrate Judge confirming that any new claims are not frivolous or vexatious before filing. The judgment dismissing Ortman's action and awarding monetary damages was affirmed, while the injunction was adjusted accordingly.