In re Adams, 494 Mich. 162

JTC recommended 180 days’ suspension without pay and $8,498.40 costs for Deborah Ross Adams based on alleged misconduct in a contentious divorce.
Master found perjury, forged signatures, and several misrepresentations; JTC adopted most master findings but narrowed some conclusions.
Respondent admitted calling Judge Brennan’s chambers while represented, and denying it under oath in Brennan’s courtroom.
Respondent signed her former attorney Ms. Dudley’s name on pleadings and filed them without permission; Dudley denied giving permission.
JTC concluded multiple misrepresentations were proven; respondent lied in testimony to both the JTC and the court proceedings.
Court held removal from office was necessary to restore integrity of the judiciary, and imposed costs for deceitful conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent committed perjury	Adams lied under oath in Brennan’s courtroom.	Respondent did not intentionally lie; statements were misunderstandings.	Yes; perjury proven; lies under oath.
Whether signing another attorney’s name without permission constitutes forgery/uttering	Dudley did not authorize signing; documents filed without permission.	Respondent believed she had permission to sign and file.	Yes; signing without permission violated forging/uttering statutes and code.
Whether respondent’s misrepresentations to the JTC were proven	Respondent lied about number of calls, permission, and other facts.	Some statements were truthful or not deliberate lies.	Yes; multiple misrepresentations established.
Appropriate sanction for misconduct	180-day suspension without pay adequately protects the public.	suspension is sufficient; removal is not necessary.	Removal from office deemed necessary; suspension alone inadequate.
Whether costs under MCR 9.205(B) are appropriate	Costs should be imposed for deceitful conduct.	Costs may follow conduct; not necessarily here.	Costs of $8,498.40 ordered.

In re Brown, 461 Mich 1291 (2000) (Brown factors guide sanctions; pattern vs isolated misconduct)
In re Ferrara, 458 Mich 350 (1998) (oath integrity; removal for lying under oath)
In re Noecker, 472 Mich 1 (2005) (truthfulness under oath and public trust; precedential on removal)
In re James, 492 Mich 553 (2012) (lying under oath antithesis of judicial integrity; sanctions)
In re Chrzanowski, 465 Mich 468 (2001) (review of JTC proceedings; role of Supreme Court in discipline)
In re Halloran, 466 Mich 1219 (2002) (scope of de novo review in JTC disciplinary matters)
In re Mikesell, 396 Mich 517 (1976) (powers and boundaries of JTC investigations)
In re Noecker, 472 Mich 13 (2005) (integrity and honesty required of judges)