in Re Hon Lisa O Gorcyca, 152831

Background

Judge Lisa O. Gorcyca presided over a protracted, acrimonious divorce/custody case (three children: LT, age 13; RT, 10; NT, 9) with years of failed parenting-time compliance and many prior orders and interventions.
On June 23–24, 2015 respondent ordered supervised parenting time for the father with RT and NT in the judge’s jury room; LT was not scheduled to visit until July 14.
On June 24 the children refused to communicate with their father; respondent appointed counsel for each child, convened a show-cause proceeding, and addressed the children in court.
Respondent found all three children in direct contempt, made disparaging, demeaning comments (e.g., “mentally messed up,” “brainwashed”), gestured toward LT’s temple, and ordered confinement at Oakland County Children’s Village; the children were handcuffed and removed.
The Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) charged respondent with judicial misconduct for (1) improper contempt findings (including contempt as to LT, who had no order that day) and delegation of purging authority to the father, (2) failing to exhibit judicial temperament, and (3) making a misleading answer about the temple-gesture; the JTC recommended censure and a 30-day suspension plus costs.
The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed de novo: it sustained findings of improper judicial temperament (Code of Judicial Conduct violations), but concluded the contempt errors were legal errors made in good faith with due diligence (not misconduct); it ordered public censure and declined to assess costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (JTC/Examiner)	Defendant's Argument (Gorcyca)	Held
Whether respondent’s courtroom remarks and gestures violated the Code of Judicial Conduct	Remarks and gestures were insulting, demeaning, and undermined public confidence; violation of Canons 1, 2(A), 2(B), 3(A)(3)	Conduct was a single lapse in an extremely contentious matter; not a basis for severe discipline	Sustained: respondent violated Canons 1, 2(A) (first sentence), 2(B), and 3(A)(3); public censure imposed
Whether holding LT (not subject to that day’s order) in contempt and delegating purging authority to father constituted judicial misconduct	Those acts were an abuse of contempt power and a willful failure to observe law (misconduct)	Any error was legal only; actions were taken in good faith, with due diligence, and could be remedied on appeal	Not sustained as misconduct: court characterized these as legal errors made in good faith with due diligence, remediable on appeal
Whether respondent’s June 24 answer about the temple-gesture was a misrepresentation or misleading (warranting costs)	Answer was misleading and required investigation; costs should be imposed under MCR 9.205(B)	The gesture explanation reflected imperfect memory/speculation, not intentional deceit	Not sustained for costs: Court rejected imposition of costs, finding no evidence of wrongful intent to deceive
Appropriate sanction for established misconduct	JTC: censure plus 30-day suspension without pay (and costs)	Respondent: sanctions should be reduced/limited to censure given isolated lapse and record	Court: public censure proportionate; rejected suspension and costs

Key Cases Cited

In re Morrow, 496 Mich 291 (2014) (distinguishes legal error from willful disregard of law; bad-faith refusal to follow law constitutes misconduct)
In re Post, 493 Mich 974 (2013) (judge’s contempt proceedings that ignored counsel’s lawful objections supported suspension)
In re Hocking, 451 Mich 1 (1996) (judicial temper and caustic conduct—misconduct meriting suspension but not an abuse of contempt power in that case)
In re Seitz, 441 Mich 590 (1993) (abuse of contempt power where judge subverted court rules and orders)
In re Hague, 412 Mich 532 (1982) (threats or unjustified use of contempt power constitute misconduct)
In re Brown, 461 Mich 1291 (2000) (sets seven Brown factors for assessing sanction severity)
In re Laster, 404 Mich 449 (1978) (Commission’s role: judicial misconduct review distinct from appellate review; prevent prejudice to future litigants)
In re Jenkins, 437 Mich 15 (1991) (purpose of judicial discipline: protect public from corruption/abuse and preserve integrity of judiciary)
People v Matish, 384 Mich 568 (1971) (contempt power is ‘‘awesome’’ and must be applied judiciously)