In re Morrow, 854 N.W.2d 89

Background

Judge Bruce U. Morrow (3rd Circuit, Wayne County) faced a Formal Complaint alleging judicial misconduct arising from his conduct in multiple criminal cases; initial stipulated settlement (public censure) was rejected by the Court and matter remanded.
After respondent withdrew consent to discipline, the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) filed Formal Complaint No. 92 alleging ten counts; the master found factual support for the counts but concluded only two constituted misconduct; the JTC majority found misconduct in eight counts.
Misconduct allegations included: closing a courtroom without required findings/transcript order; disregarding mandatory sentencing or remand statutes; sua sponte dismissals contradicted by record; failure to follow appellate remand instructions; ex parte retrieval/unsafely escorting an inmate; unsanctioned subpoenas of medical records; leaving the bench to greet a defendant and hand documents.
The JTC recommended a 90-day suspension without pay based on the Brown disciplinary factors; the Court reviews JTC findings de novo and gives but does not blindly accept deference to JTC sanctions.
The Michigan Supreme Court (majority) agreed that misconduct was proven in eight counts and adopted the JTC’s conclusions of law, but reduced the sanction to a 60‑day suspension without pay, citing mitigating considerations (no personal gain, lack of a coherent pattern across all counts) and proportionality with prior precedent.
Chief Justice Young concurred in part and dissented in part (would have imposed 90 days), emphasizing need for clearer, consistent sanctioning standards and treating repeated willful refusal to follow law as warranting a presumptive 90‑day suspension; Justice Cavanagh would have imposed only public censure.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (JTC/Examiner)	Defendant's Argument (Morrow)	Held
Were the alleged acts proven as judicial misconduct?	Preponderance shows multiple rule and canon violations across eight counts.	Many acts were good-faith attempts to do justice; some isolated or unorthodox actions not misconduct.	Yes — Court adopts JTC majority: misconduct established in eight counts.
Does a judge’s subjective good-faith or motive preclude discipline?	Objective standard controls misconduct determination; motive may be considered only as mitigation for sanction.	Actions were taken in "good faith and with due diligence," so should avoid discipline.	Motive does not excuse misconduct; good faith is a mitigating factor for sanction only.
What standard of review and weight is given to JTC sanction recommendations?	JTC’s factual findings and sanction recommendation merit considerable deference.	N/A (respondent challenged appropriateness/consent withdrawal).	Court reviews de novo but affords reasoned deference; JTC must articulate bases and proportionality to sustain recommended sanction.
Is 90-day suspension proportionate, or should it be modified?	90 days appropriate given pattern, on‑bench misconduct, prejudice to administration of justice (Brown factors).	Sanction too harsh given lack of personal gain and lack of uniform pattern across all counts.	Modified to 60‑day suspension without pay: misconduct requires significant sanction but 90 days disproportionate here.

Key Cases Cited

In re Brown, 461 Mich 1291 (2000) (sets seven Brown disciplinary factors for judicial sanctions)
In re Morrow, 493 Mich 878 (2012) (Court previously declined proposed public censure and indicated 90‑day suspension would be appropriate absent objection)
In re Hague, 412 Mich 532 (1982) (JTC may sanction willful judicial disregard of law)
In re Halloran, 466 Mich 1219 (2002) (90‑day suspension for judge who committed indecent exposure; discussion of sanction severity)
In re Justin, 490 Mich 394 (2012) (discipline for misuse of judicial office; illustrative of greater sanctions where personal gain or abuse of office present)
In re James, 492 Mich 553 (2012) (discipline for misappropriation of funds; discussed severity where criminality or personal benefit involved)
In re McCree, 495 Mich 51 (2014) (sanctions for extensive ex parte conduct and exploitation of judicial position)
In re Moore, 464 Mich 98 (2001) (sanctioning principles and precedents for judicial misconduct)
In re Nebel, 485 Mich 1049 (2010) (90‑day suspension for judge who committed a crime outside the courtroom)
In re Steenland, 482 Mich 1230 (2008) (90‑day suspension for criminal misconduct by judge)