In re James
492 Mich. 553
| Mich. | 2012Background
- Judge Sylvia James, sole judge of the 22d District Court in Inkster, Michigan, faced a JTC investigation for four counts of misconduct.
- The JTC filed Formal Complaint No. 88 alleging financial, administrative, employment, and misrepresentation misconduct.
- A master conducted hearings; findings supported significant misconduct and recommended removal.
- The Court suspended James with pay pending proceedings; the master and JTC found misappropriations of CSP funds and other misconduct.
- The JTC recommended removal and an $81,181.88 cost bill; four related statutory and canons violations were identified.
- The Majority adopts the JTC findings and removals, while a concurrence argues for a broader sanction including a six-year conditional suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jamesundergone financial improprieties with CSP funds | JTC found misappropriation of CSP funds for self-promotion and travel | James contends misappropriation defenses or errors in accounting | Yes, financial improprieties established; removal warranted |
| Whether the business-attire policy improperly denied court access | JTC concluded policy enforcement prejudiced access to the court | James argues policy was reasonable and enforceable | Yes, administrative improprieties proven; removal warranted |
| Whether successful nepotism and improper magistrate hiring violated policy | JTC found violation of antinepotism and qualifications rules | James claims policy interpretation or implementation issues | Yes, employment improprieties established; removal warranted |
| Whether misrepresentations under oath occurred during investigation/hearing | JTC and master found numerous false statements under oath | James disputes some statements or credibility | Yes, misrepresentations proven; removal warranted |
| Whether removal alone suffices or additional sanctions are needed to protect judiciary | Removal plus restitution and costs address harms to judiciary integrity | Removal suffices; no further suspensions necessary | Removal warranted; costs and restitution required; majority declines six-year conditional suspension (dissenting view regarding broader sanction) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Brown, 461 Mich 1291 (2000) (guides seven Brown factors for discipline; weighs serious misconduct toward admin of justice)
- Probert, 411 Mich 210 (1981) (discusses conditional suspensions to protect integrity of judiciary)
- Huff, 352 Mich 402 (1958) (superintending power over courts; limits of removal/suspension)
- In re Mikesell, 396 Mich 517 (1976) (discusses executive power to discipline; inclusion of sanctions beyond removal)
- Ferrara, 458 Mich 350 (1998) (emphasizes truthfulness and the Court’s duty to uphold integrity of judiciary)
- Del Rio, 400 Mich 665 (1977) ( articulates superintending control and duty to protect integrity of judiciary)
- In re Noecker, 472 Mich 1 (2005) (discusses misconduct and sanctions context in JTC proceedings)
- In re Jenkins, 437 Mich 15 (1991) (conduct issues linked to professional standards and discipline)
- In re James, 490 Mich 936 (2011) (reference to related procedural posture and formal complaint)