Attorney contempt; Direct criminal contempt; MCL 600.1701; MCL 600.1711; In re Contempt of Tauber; Contempt sentencing; Different judge; In re Contempt of Scharg; Fifth Amendment privilege; Self-incrimination; In re Baker; Compelled testimony; In re Blakeman

The court held that the probate court did not abuse its discretion by holding appellant-attorney in direct contempt or by later sentencing her, but that it violated her Fifth Amendment rights by compelling testimony about missing trust funds. Appellant was counsel in two trust matters before the same judge and was held in contempt for abruptly leaving a Zoom hearing, failing to transfer Harrison Trust funds, and failing to provide an accounting in the Mausolf matter. The court first held that direct contempt was proper because appellant said, “Do what you need to do” and left the Zoom hearing before the probate court ruled on her adjournment request, which prevented it from resolving pending matters and occurred in “the immediate view and presence” of the court. The court rejected her medical explanation because the probate court observed that she appeared “lucid and competent,” was able to challenge opposing counsel’s timeline, and provided no adequate medical documentation before the hearing. The court also held that sentencing did not have to be assigned to another judge under Scharg because the delay was caused by appellant leaving the Zoom call and filing multiple motions, while the probate court acted “‘out of an abundance of restraint’” and gave her “‘more than ample opportunity’” to address the trust assets. However, the court held that appellant’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated when the probate court threatened direct contempt and imprisonment after she invoked the privilege about where the missing funds had gone. Still, reversal was unwarranted because she had already testified that she lacked the funds, and the later order merely required the accounting the probate court had long been ordering. Affirmed.