Legal professionals have mixed views of what the Michigan Supreme Court will do with the Judicial Tenure Commission's misconduct finding and suspension recommendation regarding Oakland County Family Court Judge Lisa O. Gorcyca. Here at this blog, we've asserted the position that the JTC was not the appropriate forum to conduct what amounted to a review on the merits of one of Judge Gorcyca's decisions in a highly-contentious child custody case.

The case gained world-wide media attention in the summer of 2015 when Judge Gorcyca held the three Tsimhoni children in contempt of her court and put them in jail for refusing to spend time with their father pursuant to her orders. Judge Gorcyca has since recused herself from the case, but her contempt ruling has burgeoned into a challenge to her professional standing as a family court jurist courtesy of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission.

Last fall, a special master made a series of findings regarding how Judge Gorcyca handled the matter; several of those findings addressed Gorcyca's decision to use her contempt powers. Based on the special master's findings of misconduct, the JTC has recommended Judge Gorcyca be suspended.

As is her right, the judge has requested a trial -really an oral argument- before the Michigan Supreme Court; the argument has been scheduled for March. Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the request of the Oakland County Bar Association and the Michigan Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers to file an Amicus Curiae brief.

In the introductory paragraphs to the Amicus brief, the OCBA states:

It is often said: “In criminal cases, judges see bad people at their best; and in family law cases, judges see good people at their worst.” In family law, where emotions often run high, judges require both broad authority to issue orders and a full arsenal of powers to implement their orders. They cannot and should not be burdened by “political correctness”. Indeed, one of the cornerstones of our judicial system is the recognition that judges provide justice for all, including, when appropriate, supporting the minority or unpopular causes.

The Amicus brief highlighted points of contention with two of the JTC's findings: 1) the alleged intemperate comments made by Judge Gorcyca; and 2) the alleged error in the mechanics of her contempt ruling.

Characterizing the proceedings as a "disingenuous prosecution", the Amicus concluded, and we here at the Law Blogger wholeheartedly agree, that Judge Gorcyca, in the worst case, made an error of law; she did not transgress judicial norms or canons; she did not commit judicial misconduct.

At the heart of the Amicus brief is the rationale that if judges are subjected to punishment based on their substantive rulings, then a chilling effect will seep into the judicial fabric of our county court system like a damp cold fog. This chilling fog will distort the mechanism of justice for many families at the very time they need the county family court the most.

This blogger recently experienced the chilling effect of the Gorcyca case first hand. During argument in a parental alienation case, we represented the target parent, attempting to break through a stubborn wall of parental alienation. In her reluctance to enforce the terms of a previously entered parenting order, the family court judge specifically referenced Judge Gorcyca's case.

For all of these reasons, we here at the Law Bogger sincerely hope that the Michigan Supreme Court is persuaded by the OCBA's amicus brief. Errors of law belong in the Court of Appeals, not before the Judicial Tenure Commission.

Post #577

www.clarkstonlegal.com

Judge Brenda K. Sanders

36th District Judge Brenda K. Sanders could be the first judge in Michigan history to be removed from the bench due to mental illness. In March, a special master [appointed by the Michigan Supreme Court] conducted a hearing after which he concluded that Judge Sanders was "psychotic".

The case, initially lodged through a complaint filed by the Judicial Tenure Commission, contained allegations that Judge Sanders suffered from paranoid delusions about a conspiracy to remove her from the bench in Detroit. She detailed her irrational fears in a letter to U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade.

Following an investigation by the Master, findings of fact were made which resulted in the Judicial Tenure Commission recommending removal of Judge Sanders from the bench based on her mental disability and judicial misconduct.  To date, however, Judge Sanders has refused to resign or retire.

Among her other reported problems, Judge Sanders had a 400 case backlog, took an extended medical leave found to be fraudulent, stated to the U.S. Attorney that she was being framed as a suspect in what she characterized as the suspicious deaths of other 36th District Court Judges, and claimed that she was evicted from her home in Detroit by the Michigan Supreme Court.

The case brings into focus the problem of mental illness among members of the bar and the judiciary. Lawyers and judges do operate in a stressful environment, fraught with adversarial proceedings, client and public expectations, with every decision subjected to continuous review.

Over here at the Law Blogger, we work with veteran litigators all day every day. It's just not an easy road.

Sometimes, the pressures of the job catch-up with the judge or the lawyer. What should be done when the legal professional starts to unravel mentally?

In the case of Judge Sanders, her lawyer has acknowledged his client's mental illness. Nevertheless, he has advocated for allowing her to retire on her own accord, with dignity.

As of this date, the case remains pending at the Michigan Supreme Court. Previously scheduled oral argument has been canceled and no argument is on the High Court's docket. The Supreme Court could simply decide the case based on the file it currently holds, or it could order oral argument.

When a judge or a lawyer is having trouble with mental illness, alcoholism or substance abuse, the Lawyer and Judges' Assistance Program is available to them through their required membership in the State Bar of Michigan. Also, the American Bar Association has established the Judicial Wellness Initiative.

In some cases, however, like the case of Judge Sanders, the legal professional will not take the necessary first step to recovery: accepting personal responsibility. Then the next step: accepting professional help.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

This is not a resignation, he says.  Judge Dennis Powers, having served on the district court bench in Novi for the past 16-years, told Michigan Lawyers Weekly that he submitted a letter of retirement, not resignation.

Today is the first day Judge Powers' courtroom sits empty following his sudden change in plans.

The embattled judge was facing a trial this month at the Judicial Tenure Commission over allegations of improper expense reports, a "ghost docket", threatening a "whistle blower" staff member, and other judicial improprieties.  Up until 2-weeks ago, it looked like Judge Powers, 72-years old and thus ineligible by age to run for another election under state law, was determined to fight the charges to the bitter end.  Judge Powers' lawyers at the Vandeveer Garza law firm were gearing-up; now they have withdrawn from the matter.

Not to condone judicial impropriety [these allegations will never carry the weight of a judicial conviction in light of the Judge's sudden retirement], but we here at the Law Blogger will hate to see Judge Powers go.  He was always a gracious and reasonable jurist in our experience.  Personally, I had one of my biggest felony cases begin in the Novi District Court, and Judge Powers handled it very well; for that I will always be grateful.

That said, however, this is truly a bad end to an otherwise outstanding judicial tenure.  When judges are accused of impropriety -something that has been rampant out in Novi- the effect is that the foundation of the justice system erodes and the community loses faith in the concept of achieving justice as a civic goal in our free society.  This is not a good result in a free society governed by laws that are ruled upon by a judiciary elected from the community.

The next step out in Novi is for Governor Rick Snyder to appoint a lawyer to finish-out the remaining two years of Judge Powers' term.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Novi District Judge Dennis Powers

Over here at the Law Blogger, we've dared to imagine what it's like to be a judge.  While none of our lawyers have ever been on the non-partisan ballot, we work with enough judges to marvel at the awesome responsibilities they shoulder every day, and the substantial powers entrusted to them to decide cases.

To maintain a well-oiled docket, either at the district court or the circuit court level, is a monumental task that requires legal knowledge, wisdom and perhaps most importantly, management skills.  As either a circuit or district court judge, you are elected from the very community in which you pronounce judgment, day-in-day-out.

 Judges, even more so than our public servants in the other branches of government, must have impeccable integrity.  When a judge breaches the public's trust, it erodes the fabric of our justice system; when that breach is due to dishonesty, the damage is accelerated.

Two veteran jurists in Novi have been in the news over the past year for this type of mission-critical breakdown.  They have left their communities wondering about the brand of justice that is served at the 52/1st District Court.

Last week, the Judicial Tenure Commission filed a 58-page complaint against district judge Dennis Powers, alleging among other things that Judge Powers requested reimbursements to which he was not entitled, was frequently late to court, granted favors to his "friends", as famously detailed in a Fox News' expose, and threatened to terminate the whistle-blower on his staff after the local media reported on the story.

For his part, Judge Brian MacKenzie, in the adjacent chambers at the 52/1st, is also under scrutiny; his docket is being reviewed by a higher court; and a tape recording made in Judge MacKenzie's chambers about a questionable conversation the judge directed involving an exchange of dismissals, civil for criminal, is under review by the FBI.  We shall see where all that goes...

Our blog has already detailed some of the shenanigans sponsored by Judge Brian MacKenzie in an earlier Law Blogger post.  Since then, Oakland Circuit Judge Colleen O'Brien did find that Judge MacKenzie acted contrary to the law in at least 8 cases, and ordered part of his docket [in domestic violence cases] to be subject to her review.

Then there is the 2014 election where the allegations against Judge MacKenzie will be tested on the non-partisan ballot, first in the August primary, then in the general election if MacKenzie survives the primary; he is being challenged by two local attorneys- his former law clerk Travis Reeds, and Scott Powers, Judge Dennis Powers' son.

With the formal JTC complaint now filed against him, it is uncertain whether Judge Powers will even make it through the two years remaining on his term.  That would open-up a seat on this radioactive bench for Governor Rick Snyder to fill through a local judicial appointment.

In order to restore faith in our local judiciary, Governor Snyder needs to get that appointment right, should he have the opportunity.  Stay tuned and we will keep you posted of all significant developments happening out in Novi.

In the meantime, if you've had an interesting experience in a district court, we would like to hear from you.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

A few of my Facebook friends are judges.  They've taken a low profile on the news feed.  Will Michigan's Judicial Tenure Commission, formed in 1968 via constitutional amendment, seek to outlaw such social network connections like the State of Florida?

In Florida, the Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued a 11/17/2009 decision, holding that judges may not connect with attorneys on Facebook, or similar social networking media.  The Committee's decision is based on a Florida's judicial canon prohibiting the appearance that a lawyer, or anyone else, is in a special position to influence the judge.

Floridian judges, however, remain free to post comments to their non-lawyer "friends", and can develop "fan pages" to help with their reelection campaigns.  Only the attorney-judge connection is now taboo in Florida.
The Ethics Advisory Committee stated that, "judges cannot isolate themselves entirely from the real world and cannot be expected to avoid all friendships outside of their judicial responsibilities, some restrictions upon a judge’s conduct are inherent in the office."


Ethics are catching-up slowly with attorneys and judges in the web 2.0 world.  Some states, like Louisiana, New York, and now Florida, have taken a restrictive view of lawyer's and judge's permissible activities on such sites.  


Linked-In, Twitter, and Facebook remain available to our judges.  You can expect Michigan's never shy Judicial Tenure Commission to address the situation as soon as the right case rolls around.  Shouldn't be too long... Stay tuned.


info@clarkstonlegal.com


www.clarkstonlegal.com