The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has ordered a two-year suspension of Marsha M. Lang (P42392), currently listed in Roosevelt, Utah, following reciprocal discipline imposed by a Utah court.
The suspension was issued pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 9.120(C), which governs reciprocal discipline based on attorney sanctions imposed in other jurisdictions.
Case Overview
The Grievance Administrator initiated a reciprocal discipline proceeding after filing a certified copy of a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline entered on April 30, 2025, by the Eighth Judicial District Court of Utah.
That order suspended Lang’s Utah law license in:
In the Matter of the Discipline of Marsha M. Lang #4995
Eighth Judicial District Court of Utah
Case No. 240905255
Reciprocal Discipline Process
On July 10, 2025, the Attorney Discipline Board issued an order directing the parties to notify the Board within 21 days if:
- They objected to the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan under MCR 9.120(C)(1), or
- They requested a hearing
The 21-day response period expired without any objection or request for hearing by either party.
Discipline Imposed in Michigan
On September 11, 2025, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that:
- Marsha M. Lang be suspended from the practice of law in Michigan for two years
- The suspension is effective October 10, 2025
- Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,522.52
Prior Michigan Discipline
According to the notice, Lang has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since May 1, 2005, following earlier disciplinary action.
That earlier discipline was reflected in a Notice of Three-Month Suspension (By Consent) dated February 2, 2006, in Grievance Administrator v Marsha M. Lang, Case No. 05-81-RD.
Why This Matters
Reciprocal discipline ensures that attorneys cannot avoid professional consequences by crossing state lines. When another jurisdiction imposes discipline and no objection is raised, Michigan courts routinely mirror that sanction to protect the integrity of the legal profession and the public.
This case also highlights how long-standing suspensions remain relevant in later disciplinary proceedings, particularly when new sanctions are imposed elsewhere.
