*1
590
Mich
In re SEITZ
(Calendar
1).
3,
September
Argued
De-
No.
No. 90794.
Docket
Levin, J.,
by
2,
Dissenting opinion
February
filed
cided
1993.
3,
February
Rehearing
Murphy, Brenton & Spagnuolo, P.C. (by Griffith), Frederick J. for the respondent. J.
Brickley,
INTRODUCTION 12, 1991, On April this Court appointed retired Circuit R. William Peterson as master preside over the hearing of Formal Complaint No. filed by the Judicial Tenure Commission 441 Mich op the Court Seitz, Monroe McCauley James
against Honorable Monroe, Michigan.1 Court, County Probate complaint centered paragraph The twenty-five miscon- general alleged acts following on duct:2 neglect adoption docket
1. Wilful the State respond requests refusal Administrator’s Court Office (scao); contempt power; 2. Abuse of re- delegation authority Improper 3. home youth facility; juveniles lease personnel certain home youth 4. Order that or from work- from his courtroom be barred him; assigned to cases ing any as- predispositional 5. order Improper evaluations be psychological sessments outside psychologists; conducted relationship Unprofessional 6. employees;
hostile attitude toward listening de- telephone 7. of a Installation *3 vice; per- to commit Encouraging employees
8. jury; disqualification
9. of and Improper handling Brown; particular adoption case —In re from a the reports 10. Failure to file with scao. spanned years, and one-half These events two 1988, 8, 1991. 3, August through January acts charged alleged the The commission complaint on issued the The Judicial Tenure Commission 1, 20, April was on 1991. This Court March 1991. An answer filed Judge judicial previously and administrative Seitz of his had relieved 31, 1991, pay suspended January with on and then him duties on 23, 1991, petition supplemental April pursuant for interim to a suspension filed commission. pre complaint the master at An amended was ordered 8, hearing May on 1991. conference. It was filed In re Opinion op the Court judicial constituted violations of the standards of under MCR 9.205 conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Beginning 7, 1991, on October the master heard testimony days. Although for nine he found that prove allegations the commission failed to all the twenty-five-paragraph complaint3 of —some proven by preponderance were found to be a of judicial the evidence and others not to amount Judge misconduct —he did conclude that Seitz en- gaged demonstrating pattern gross in acts a of judicial namely: misconduct, telephone listening
A. Installation of de- vice; contempt power;
B. Abuse of Unprofessional relationship C. with employees; hostile attitude towards neglect adoption D. Wilful docket and respond requests by refusal to scao; reports E. Failure to file scao. hearing testimony After of witnesses and arguments counsel, the master submitted his report 31, on 1991. December The commission met open arguments regarding session to hear oral report adopted 9, the master’s on March 1992. It findings in full the master’s of fact and conclusions provided of law that the basis for its decision and discipline April recommendation оf issued 1992.
The commission concluded that
Seitz guilty
judicial
misconduct that served to under-
proving
allegations
The commission has the burden of
con
complaint by
preponderance
tained in the
In re
the evidence.
*4
(1986).
514,
Loyd,
521-522;
424 Mich
mine effectiveness for the office he disrespect engendered public Judge Seitz has The commission stated holds. instances, a over demonstrated, of a number time, possess does not of that he period substantial competent judge, qualities essential to be those impugned have that his wilful violations and entire court and the integrity honesty Therefore, rec- commission Michigan judiciary. re- Court Supreme remove ommended office, again him from ever spondent bar holding judicial office. task, reviewing novo the de by
It becomes our case, "the con- to conclude whether record this by and found charged duct [Seitz] The is- is established record. Commission then, consideration, are whether sues our and, discipline if warranting nature conduct of a removal, so, as the Com- whether recommended discipline form of mission or some other majority Bennett, 178, In re be Mich imposed.” should (1978).4 184; 267 NW2d & I. FACTS ARGUMENTS being James Seitz has a McCauley history unable to work in an amicable environment co-workers, or people authority, be it anyone, judge he became employees. When first Probate hostilities County Monroe Court him and began immediately almost between bench, Harry on the only colleague chief prevent power de us from Our of review novo does according ability proper deference to the master’s "to observe credibility.” on their the [Loyd, demeanor and comment witnesses’ supra n 3 at 535.] *5 In re 595 Opinion of the Court Judge resigned Seitz. in 1985.5 Harry Before filled, his vacancy respondent discharged was the Harry Seitz’ court Mrs. reporter-secretary, Trow- bridge, led her legal against which to action respondent County. and Monroe Costello,
Joseph urging respondent, with the appointed to fill the vacancy. began What as relationship an amicable between the two judges hostile, The so quickly deteriorated. situation was appointed the then Chief Justice of this Court Court of to act Appeals Judge John as chief Gillis 6 judge assigned State Court Administrator special to act as administrator of the Monroe Judge Judge Probate Gillis named County Court. tern, as judge pro resulting Costello chief his becoming acting judge appointment chief when of Judge judge as chief ended at the end of Gillis 1988.7
Since that time County Monroe Probate disarray. referring Court has been a state of In Costello, Seitz and Judge the master summarized as follows: associates, staff,
They have overwhelmed
State Court Administrator’s
and the
Office
Judicial
complaints against
Tenure Commission with
one
another,
generated
impressive
and have
an
volume
Staff,
complaints
caught up
from others.
in the
turmoil,
two,
pawns
have become
between the
compelled
suspicion
in an
work
environment of
hostility.
Contact was reduced to written
memoranda, employees made notes of events and
compiled
judges
dossiers on
and each other. Some
brought
of them
jail.
law suits and one went
Respondent secretly taped
telephone
his
cоnversa-
tions.
two
men are not related.
judge,
In the 1987 election for chief
each
voted for himself.
8.110(C)(5).
Pursuant
to MCR
Central to an charges during which transpired period in the relationship arose his against respondent discussing In reporter. secretary/court the master stated: relationship, 1983, Cindy by respon- hired early In Paz was Paz, secretary-recorder. Mrs. now be his dent Cameron, failed the for court recorder Mrs. three times but was test kept job respondent developed. relationship She was and a bizarre description. fair rough, described which is a as *6 two, Indeed, tenor of conversation between private, presence in the of other staff or in court atmosphere bawdy with took on the of a house gifts vulgar and of a crude and sexual references respondent deny Mrs. nature. Both that a sexual not, and Cameron them; relationship if existed between appear respondent trying it to would they run He hinted to her that should create one. off lems with her and described his most together; prob- he discussed his matrimonial wife to in the her unflattering drop her terms. He would in at day night, at hours of or often home bringing liquor all him; her bought expensive with he helpful And generous clothes. and her. He was in expected loyalty he of her his conflicts absolute Seitz, others, Judge Judge insist- with Costello ing that refer to them in the crudest of terms she them. and that she avoid contacts with Paz, 1989, respon- After in the divorce Mrs. heavily, unhappy of his dent drank talked more marriage, might into suggestions they Paz made to Mrs. together, her not to rush run off and told any relationship might as anyone with else he pass messages to be He would sometimes divorced. friend, Leonard, through Paz her Mrs. in Mrs. Irene (who he January of 1990 told Mrs. Leonard told Paz) trip going give he was Mrs. Paz a to Florida. . . . Mrs. Paz not intend to and did did Paz, go telling Florida. Later Mrs. without Cameron, respondent, engaged Larry an become In re Seitz op the Court 7, at the Youth Center. On Feb. intake worker engagement respondent learned of the when else, gave He then her a he vomited. someone tapes, and sent her a series of notes and bizarre to come to message through Mrs. Leonard not might sought hurt Paz he her. Mrs. work because county elsewhere employment husband, and, . . her new is now system . with suing respondent. following episodes milieu that the It was this occurred.
A. TELEPHONE LISTENING DEVICE suspect- Cameron, In the summer of Mrs. ing was involved with another that her husband Judge tap woman, asked Seitz to install a telephone. recording conversations on her home Judge accompanied alleges She her to purchasing equip- Shack, Radio ment himself with insisted on card, his credit and assisted her installing telephonic eavesdropping device. Judge emphatically purchasing denies installing equipment.8 such deny re-
He does not that his assistance was request quested, but that he declined the after conferring Carr, friend, James *7 Magistrate for District United States the Northern Judge Judge Carr informed Seitz that of Ohio. felony recording third-party conversation is a a according respondent, thereafter, he had no and 8 supporting Judge the events offered as evidence his view of Seitz indicating purchase that he did not on credit his credit card records alleged by any equipment Shack as Mrs. Cameron. The from Radio request the credit denied his to admit master and the commission teleрhone acknowledges Judge a Seitz that he installed card records. telephone County listening Probate in the Monroe device on his office when he that Mrs. Cameron was with him He testified Courthouse. indicating purchase equipment. receipts purchased of The that Cindy telephone listening equipment show that Cameron device 3, August Judge the same Radio Shack on were both at and Seitz telephonic listening equipment. they purchased both 441 Mich op the Court he that He testified matter.9 in the
involvement that someone Mrs. Cameron by informed was later the device.10 her install helped else testi- that, although the master concluded The Mrs. opposed, diametrically of the two was mony The commission credible. the more Cameron’s Seitz Judge that found They specifically agreed. statutes, MCL eavesdropping violated had 28.807(3) 750.539f; MSA MCL 750.539c; MSA recording tape 28.807(6), installing telephone In terms of Cameron. home of Mrs. at the system misconduct, stated: the master grounds specific virtu- violates Ethics and the criminal code violation of His is of Judicial the Canons ally all of 9.205(C)(4),clearly prejudi- MCR under misconduct justice. cial to the administration concluded: the commission topic, the same On Respondent’s vio- egregiously, and most Finally very betray his statutes of the criminal lations installing surveillance device By of office. oath and device, with the providing Mrs. Cameron requiring argues for the Judge error reversal it was Seitz testimony Judge Carr on this issue. master to exclude commission denied evidence. a motion to hear this transcript tape Judge of a recorded moved to admit the Seitz also establishing Cindy he did not Cameron he had conversation know denied this listening telephone The commission also device. how to install a motion. commission, offered, Judge the first time before Seitz respondent Gallagher, had testimony spoken Cindy recording learned whom of Terrence tape telephone the installation of the Cameron about alleges Judge that Mrs. Cameron her home. Seitz device at Gallagher respondent refused to assist her to Mr. admitted setting equipment. up the proposed testimony of Terrence Gal- Judge asserts that directly significant the credibil- lagher ity commenced two highly it related to because Cindy argues has Cameron Cindy Cameron. against the statement is the him and that lawsuits 801(D)(2), therefore, party-opponent under MRE admission of hearsay. objectionable *8 In re Opinion of the Court Judge knowing felonious purpose, guilty her Seitz was inappropriate grossly conduct, to this greater office. There can be no offense to the
judicial system judge than a who has such con- tempt him. it it for the law that he breaks as suits alleged Judge This misconduct Seitz amounts to significant dispute only factual the matters partici- at issue in this case—whether or not he eavesdropping pated in the installation of an de- felony. vice, an act that constitute a could Although might we be inclined to honor the request accept testimony for additional were we to finding the felony, of an act that would constitute a undisputed not do so. facts
we need The Judge demonstrate Seitz’ embroilment his em- dispute, recording ployee’s marital use of his own surreptitiously conversations, record device knowledge employee
that his also intended to he commit and had commenced what believed felony. individually actions, be a Such while constituting charge, support necessarily specific regarding Judge our conclusions Seitz’ overall lack judicial temperament propriety of developed and sense of as opinion.11
in this B. ABUSE OF CONTEMPT POWER acting In November of Gillis, John probate assigned Supreme as chief Court, an order re- issued administrative quired youth home residents to have their hear- ings youth facility oper- home, conducted at the probate ated under the direction of the the detention and treatment court for juveniles. misconduct, succeeding episodes alleged In this and the four conclusion, will for reasons that from be set forth our we will refrain specifically designating specific provisions of the canons or apply episode. MCR 9.205 that to each Mich 590 op the Court facility, and detention a maximum center youth *9 to reasons and security for was issued this order the to courthouse. transportation avoid assumed 1989, Judge Costello when January In Judge assignment the of the court after control youth superintendent the expired, Gillis Costello, who Judge Gentner. center was Daniel him order, informed the administrative favored were juveniles and that it to be followed that court- the center to the brought not to be hearings. house for order, the issued Seitz, did not favor
Judge who Judge to Costello’s contrary cases orders two However, hearings Gentner.12 to Mr. directions not were juveniles held were not because During the third week from the center. brought to Seitz Judge met with Mr. Gentner January, him Seitz told conflicting Judge orders. discuss the Mr. was invalid. Gentner Judge Gillis’ order Seitz, Judge disobey not want said that he did to follow required felt he was but that he Seitz indicated Judge the chief judge. orders of He did position. Mr. Gentner’s recognized that he in- that he not, however, inform Mr. Gentner fact, Judge In the order. comply tended to with to be hearings two scheduled immediately Seitz did not trans- Mr. Gentner held in his courtroom. Instead, center. from the port juveniles call. held conference hearings were Order then issued Administrative Judge Costello He 1989-2, Gnus’ order. copy Judge a verbatim No. State 1989 to the February the order in submitted approval under for Office Court Administrator’s to the Judge order never submitted the administrative Gillis therefore, approval; the order did not Administrator State Court comply result, Judge provisions Seitz 8.Í12. As a of MCR binding. legally was not believed that the order In re Opinion of the Court approved in March The order was rule. the court 1989. topic discussion to be continued
The order Judge Judge Costello, the scao. Seitz, between Judge May an order to 1989, issued On the the stating May 10 youth director, home juve- Gentner, was to release director, Mr. 9:00 a.m. for a after her father nile female hearing courthouse to be conducted the statement contained The order afternoon.13 that failure This caused contempt. comply would be deemed Judge to conclude the master trap deliberately trying Mr. Gentner.14 Seitz was expressed about the order his concern instructed Mr. Gentner to to release Mr. Gentner Costello, who girl Mr. Gentner to her father. *10 thought any conflict, he would he that in testified required the chief the directive of to follow be that judge. to the center the father came When daughter morning, not could told that his he was be released. deputies youth
Judge and to the home Seitz sent brought to his arrested had Mr. Gentner Judge hear- a "mock” Seitz conducted courtroom. process. ing Mr. Gentner of due When devoid Judge ignored. Seitz he was for counsel asked youth call the home that Mr. Gentner ordered respectfully girl Mr. Gentner released. have part: pertinent in The order stated pre- having recommendations received the The Court County dispositional the Monroe conducted at assessment being Center, that [the and those recommendations Youth father, juvenile] now therefore: to her be released hereby ordered, scheduled this matter be and is It is that Wednesday, May hearing 1989 at dispositional on: p.m. County Court- of the Monroe 2:45 Courtroom #305 [Emphasis house. added.] an order he had never received testified that Mr. Gentner supervisor. years contempt provision as a in his seven contained a 441 Mich Opinion op the Court Judge of Costello.15 and directives the order cited contempt Judge Mr. Gentner found Seitz Judge jailed.16 accused Seitz him and ordered court Judge colleague, Costello, of obstruction his bring prosecutor requested justice against grievance charges. He filed a also criminal him Commission.17 the Judicial Tenure with required Judge argued he was published it was never follow the order because given copy it it after was never and he was approved. 8.112(B) requirement contains no MCR publication orders or the of administrative for giving Judge Seitz was aware that
of notice. Judge Costello and that had been issued order approval. He submitted for the it had been scao’s Judge Mr. Costello and was aware that both also it effective. He testified considered to be Gentner approved had not know the order been that he did any make nor did he bother scao, regard inquiry to whether the order had been testimony approved. master found contemptuously outright or in- "an falsehood was judicial administra- different to the necessities tion.” practice
Judge argued that it was common hearing if the recom- children before a to release proba- they home on mendation was that be sent that it Seitz states his brief tion. juvenile permanently release the intention to juvenile probation, therefore, and, was no statute that the in his office from for this approved copy 16 *11 15 [17] Judge Mr. Gentner It should be printed. of the letter case. Attached to the memo were a in March and these events Seitz juvenile testified that Judge spent noted that from the scao five hours Costello, actually only there was no dated the be approving that afternoon did he present transpired May. jail. He was not day the order. The order was at the requirement by rule or copy before, of hearing. the officially with directions find order a memo booked and a 603 In re the of Court County longer party Monroe at the "detained No. Order Administrative Center” Youth apply.18 did not 1989-2 topic, findings making the this fact on of
After following observations: the made master was this reached but can be conclusion No purpose of for the sole power judicial of an abuse perhaps and trumped Judge Pro Tern humiliating the Chief up on a prosecution him to subjecting Superinten justice. of charge obstruction Center, was offense whose sole Youth of the dent Costello, was to be Judge following the orders resolve Respondent’s stubborn as well. humiliated 1989-2 Order Administrative to conform by subtle accomplished more have been could considerate had his And, employed here. those than means and for for his court any concern respondent Gentner, have he could Mr. employee, court’s many other case in particular this resolved ways using an order by by adjournment, ... warrant, or even a bench rather than show cause hearing without with going forward by that that Respondent testified juvenile. presence he Gentner, it is clear Mr. but sorry felt for was him. His conduct feeling whatever he had no prejudicial power grossly so judicial an abuse 9.205(C)(4), MCR justice, administration sanction.[19] the severest as to deserve findings, agreeing the com- the master’s In abused his concluded mission part: pertinent 1989-2 states in No. Administrative Order hearing room of the hearings in the be conducted All will judge assigned by to the case County Youth Center Monroe hearings, including dispositional by . . . All formal draw. blind hearings, of record for . . . will be conducted [Emphasis assigned draw. added.] blind matter as (1982), 532, 554-555; Hague, 315 NW2d Mich re See In contempt found to constitute unjustified threat of where misconduct. *12 441 Mich op Opinion the Court humiliating purpose judicial power the sole of for 3A(9) of the Code of Canon in violation others Conduct.20 Judicial respondent inci- have us resolve this would question he knew about on the whether
dent approval by the scao the administrative order in violation this factual situation was and whether questions think can be we both of the order. While affirmatively, find, it as is sufficient answered commission, that the facts and the did the master amply Judge support Seitz was conclusion upon subverting and the rules of his court intent judge which he of his chief the decisions doing disagreed, in so he demonstrated and that creating penchant and contention tension the courthouse. properly and the commission have
The master episode we, found, the facts of this as do judicial of the standards of amount to a violation deserving and are of sanction. conduct RELATIONSHIP WITH AND C. UNPROFESSIONAL TOWARDS EMPLOYEES HOSTILE ATTITUDE Judge complaint charged Seitz The formal encouraged secretary, Cindy Cameron, to his Mrs. personnel, describing uncivil toward other court be colleagues his and others offensive obscene language. Respondent’s witness, Ms. Nina own language Jordan, his abusive to her testified about Judge personnel Costello’s and the Probate about Registrar’s office._ adopt accepted A should the usual and methods of doing justice; pline, imposition humiliating avoid the acts or disci sentencing not authorized law endeavor punishment and not seek conform to a reasonable standard severity popularity publicity exceptional or undue or either 3A(9).] leniency. [Canon In re op the Court Mrs. Cameron
In December
Christ-
Judge Costello’s staff
invited to
were
informed
Mrs. Cameron
luncheon. When
mas
if
he told her
she
about
the event
Judge Seitz
"F ’ing
could
her
pack
she
going,
planning
rationalizing
her a memo
He then wrote
bags.”
*13
also dis-
the luncheon
and
strong opposition
general.
in
civility
office
cussed
deliberately excluded
years we’ve been
For two
worthless, juve-
by the
Christmas lunch
from the
dishonest,
nile,
immature[,]
idiot down
brain dead
hall.
those terrible
get any support
all
didn’t
when]
[I
after
printed
paper
me
things were
about
fucking political
from the
headed
hack
the bald
Appeals
all those
in the news-
said
lies
Court
paper.
when
I did
of the work
this Court
90%
only
fucking
Harry Seitz was here —he
worthless
all the
hearings
estate
and
did the uncontested
trial, and he
adoptions. He never conducted a
people hearings on me
dumped
crazy
half of the
required
a little work.
because
waited
patiently
I
waited and waited and
also
change
Chief
until
I would be the
Harry
until
things
had wait
left.
—I
Then, stupidly,
as an
I tried to treat Costello
things
that I had
equal, and
do the
him
things
I
did all
subjected to.
also
sorts of
been
stupid
things
pigs across the
little
hall —
—like
suits,
pant
them
time off
leting
wear
and take
[sic]
emergencies—
they
family
it for
when
needed
things that
never allowed.
Harry
trying
I
nice and
got
I
what
deserved for
to be
repeat-
people
to these
the face
decent
—kicked
criticism,
being subjected to
edly and
ridicule and
ignorant
like
fat assholes
Carol Thurman.
led
I’m honest with and am telling really you angry it makes me when deliberately even civil to these assholes who you’re screw me like that. you they’re If think what great doing you to me is and treat them as o.k., me, they you’d then I friends when move across the hall and work over there. screw wish
. . . your depend you, I that I can need assurance on because if the recommendations of the Court Ad- [referring followed this time ministrator aren’t being appointed Judge], things Chief here are were, going they to be ten times worse than ever place going up destroyed. to and the whole And, is wind happen, gotten they’ll if that has to have they going And I’m have exactly what deserve. to somebody rely support I can on to me. to have else, anything I More than want our relation- continue, ship loyalty to it to be and but has with In re Seitz op the Court understanding this There’s no in-between there. you My loyalty 100%, it has to be and to in return. one. the same plan you so I can stand where I have to know appropriately. you those who care of I take last week I told accordingly. I I the others me. treat care of take want you I look out much as for me as to look out you. for Judge February learned that 7, 1990, On whereupon remarry, going to was Mrs. Cameron swearing. began upset visibly He he became leaving day to behind a note of the for the rest left Mrs. sick—and —I’m things: among stating, "I’m other Cameron [said] is true downstairs someone if what disappointed goddamn really sick and —more possibly you know.” can than ignoring February her for two 9, 1990, after On Judge of a series days, Mrs. Cameron Seitz sent tape. notes indicated One notes and Judge Cameron, Mrs. to talk Seitz wanted anything upset not want and did too but was happen. this was found that master "bad” implied Mrs. Mrs. Cameron. to hurt threat an gone resign within was decided Cameron week.21 _ documentary attempted Judge introduce hearing, At the his his complaints by himself and Costello about
evidence secretary. establishing purpose for the was offered The evidence purposes emotional, mental, physical condition existing mitigation. points in time argued at certain his state of mind He capacity general upon to con pertinent it reflected because judge. himself as a duct documenting Judge Costello’s the evidence ruled that The master admissible, sustaining hearsay and relevance complaints was not any error not convinced objections We are the examiner. was, excluding this evidence discretion of the master’s the use case, As we said this harmful. all of the circumstances under ample ... Jenkins, than evidence more record contains "The *15 In Leon findings re master and commission.” support (1991) (citing 15, 28-29; MCR Jenkins, 465 NW2d 437 Mich 9.203[D]). 441 Mich op the Court transcript from the following excerpts are learning Seitz made after tape Judge engaged was to be married: Cameron Cindy hurt devas- you I tell how crushed and can’t destroyed you I when I heard what tated and did; and, together I like I’ve come so far feel we’ve up totally Trying you failed. to build -just failed— and right. and care what get going get going again and it your life together, through a hell of a lot We’ve been help way I ... I you any I tried to could. you than I care what happens to more person happens any other adult in the world. to caring. anything to unqualified It’s in return understand I’ve never asked just you try that. And I want Doing destroyed really how I feel. this in myself little faith I had left what people’s the right. Stupid, is, ... guess, way character. I I feel person I live with out there and Costello are useless, worthless, my judgment of people and their character no God damn upstairs good. ... I came when I found out. About you I two seconds after went out door threw up in there. It bothered me that bad. I’ve lost what myself judging little I have in self-confidence person’s because of this. . . . another character got you working position high- in a I’ve that’s Court, position my position. est other than position I A plete where have to have total and com- you, your openness trust and faith in And, your honesty with me. now I find out that you things from really hide me. That’s shattered a my many lot of times I care about unconditional I’ve do faith and trust. ... I told you was, .
you. . . And it it was caring. . . you . I’ve told before and note you, you written and I’ve told I’d anything you. in the world for And I never expect anything back. . . . Your has life been gotten you terrible. You’ve hurt more than under- happened you. stand —I what’s Your think — just tragedies. gonna life has been continue. a series of It’s betrayed. my
...
I feel
I feel
faith in
you
my judgments
and in
just
me and
shattered
*16
In re Opinion
the Court
.
. .
again, terribly.
We’ve
I failed
destroyed.
and
never had
thing
. . .
us.
between
any romantic
terrible,
things that have
terrible
the
After all
with
years,
two
me here over
last
happened get-
pricks, and
all those
Costello and
and
Gillis
waiting
years
or ten
eight
ting
out after
knocked
God
damn
control
get in command and
de-
court,
being
away and
taken
all
and
coming in
I hate
how much
stroyed. You know
stupid.
they
too
And
I’m
I don’t learn.
here.
go
...
I
help
I
Costello.
take
get
in here.
Costello
$16,000.00 year
a
of a
stupid
bastard out
ignorant
get
rid of his ass.
trying
firm
in a law
that’s
job
ass,
my
Bust
political enemies.
sorts of
Make all
limb,
my
stick
strings, go out on a
pull all sorts
$88,000.00 year, only
out,
get
guy
a
I
neck
to be
and
now,
happened
it’s
again. And
fucked over
person in the
by the one
again.
happened
it’s
And
.
thought
do it. . .
would
I never ever
whole world
grab
you
me that
wouldn’t
you promised
thing
And
first
like a
along
you
treat
that.
came
that didn’t
. . .
you’ve done
piece
of shit. And
own two feet first. You
your
to stand on
need
[Y]ou
need to do
up your own self-esteem.
to build
thing
white
by grabbing
You don’t do that
the first
along,
you around
that
and call
piece
that doesn’t knock
comes
cunt,
psychotic
you
and treats
like a
you
you
. . .
told
before
worthless shit.
I’ve
help
you.
you
I’ll
out
anything
that I
do
need
would
strings
There
any
never
help.
. . .
No
attached.
way you
you
were a barefoot
been.
When
have
got
ape running around out there —and
little hill
lady.
. But
sophisticated
.
.
when
you
be a
themself, it hurts
up and hurts
worse
friend fucks
than
Cindy,
just
I
feel
else in the world.
anything
disappointed,
totally
completely
shattered
making you’re making a terrible
you’re
because
—
selling
your
you’re
yourself and
son
mistake and
way,
help you
And,
.
doing this so
. .
I’ll
soon.
way short
have to have.
give you
you
whatever
I
nothing,
no
because
strings,
repayment,
no
No
care that much about
two
spent
. .
last
you. .
I’ve
through
you
what
went
nights
know now
—I
22 judge subject A should direct his staff and court officials high fidelity, diligence his control to standards of observe and witnesses, courtesy litigants, jurors, lawyers and others with they capacity. 3B(2).] whom deal in their official [Canon [23] CANON ance of Impropriety 2 A Judge in All His Activities Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appear- judge respect B. A should and observe the law and should promotes public conduct himself at all times in a manner that confidence in the integrity impartiality judiciary. and justice be aware that ing, maintaining, high dence of the litigant Code should tives. CANON A dence of the An standards of conduct so that independent in our and the judiciary Judiciary be society. the public, construed and and and judicial system Should may A enforcing, not the honorary judiciary judge be Uphold preserved. judiciary. should applied and should himself the the is for the benefit of the participate to further those integrity Integrity A The judge is provisions indispensable should and in establish- Indepen- indepen- observe, always of this objec- In re Opinion op the Court Bennett, 9.205(C)(4).25 See MCR justice, of tion supra at 192-193.26 in his own respondent, episode,
In this testimony to the words, ample more than gives of his many is at the root of mentality siege The com- to the harm that resulted. actions its adequately more satisfied mission has than conduct establishing sanctionable of burden judicial number canons great cuts across its conclu- agree We with standards. professional sion. DOCKET
D. NEGLECT OF ADOPTION AND WILFUL REQUESTS BY THE SCAO REFUSAL TO RESPOND TO this problems charge began underlying Cindy secretary, departure respondent’s Cameron, processing large role played who court, left After Mrs. Cameron adoption cases. to act as respondent asked Mrs. Irene Leonard until a new one. Mrs. secretary he obtained adoption investigator Leonard was judge’s guilty . . . A office if is misconduct clearly prejudicial to the administration conduct justice. 9.205(C)(4).] . . . [MCR *18 26Judge unsuccessfully argued that it before the commission testimony expert, Luby. Dr. Dr. the of the examiner’s Elliot hear Luby wrote a respondent’s expert, fied, Judge tests, respondent, psychological administered examined reviewed, report, essentially agreeing with which we have Sargent Douglas Sargent. Although Dr. testi Dr. Luby produce testimony not to the of Dr. Seitz did move defense, mitigation pertains This evidence to the before master. below, to return to his and concludes that he would be able see position judge. testimony do think that from an as We not opining question ultimate behavioral scientist on the additional helpful respondent’s judicial office would be to fitness hold Court, given responsibility make this this our sole commission or testimony judgment. such find no error in refusal to allow We before the commission. testimony Judge Seitz’ motion to hear also denied commission Sargent, Douglas the master. We do not Dr. who testified before this as an of discretion. see abuse 441 Mich Court adop- court and somewhat familiar with was not, however, She did have train- proceedings. tion respect to the additional ing experience or with previously performed by respondent’s duties training no Mrs. Leo- secretary. provided, With reviewing forced to teach herself old nard was files. procedure apparently
Court went well for a brief hearing, When a case was for Mrs. period. ready Judge Leonard would obtain a date from Seitz and with proceed. relationship the matter would His inexplicably April Mrs. Leonard soured after he returned from a vacation and learned participating that Mrs. Leonard was in Ms. Camer- wedding. on’s Mrs. Leonard testified that her, inaccessible, Seitz avoided made himself liter- her, would not talk to and would not ally respond her requests hearing dates. She made the administrator, situation known to the court Mr. Mario Pace.
During period, Judge this complaining was Mr. Pace about Mrs. Leonard. He com- also plained that Mrs. Leonard was him bothering her getting paperwork right, gave but he never examples Mr. Pace any respect to what she doing wrong, was nor did he tell ever Mrs. Leo- doing wrong, nard what she was if indeed she was doing anything wrong.
In at the court place was a "chain of command” order, administrative which directed that any job complaints a performance judge might have about court any employee through were to be handled administrator, the court Mr. Pace. It Mr. Pace’s then responsibility directly to deal with the employee. Additionally, court employees were not to communicate with the directly judges. Any complaints were to be directed to their immediate *19 In re Seitz Opinion op the Court Pace.27 Mr. contact in turn would who supervisor, of the administra- that because argued Sеitz Judge what Mrs. Leonard not tell order, he could tive give it. He could do or how to done had to be Seitz Judge or direction. instruction any her was policy of command” the "chain claimed in his courtroom delays for the the reason effec- more problem not handle he could why communication, of a breakdown Because tively. ensuring responsibility one took no performed or properly trained was Leonard Mrs. correctly.28 her duties reluctance Seitz’ Judge found
The master neither compelled Leonard to Mrs. speak He common sense. nor the order language contrived, serving attitude to be Judge Seitz’ found a court refusal to work for his guise as employee. between in communication the breakdown
After began Leonard, Seitz Judge Mrs. Judge Seitz Leonard Mrs. to which in his office files keeping cases in result, there were aAs had no access. signed dates or hearing set Judge Seitz which had no have Leonard would Mrs. orders of which knowledge. Ad- I Court Region with the met
Mrs. Leonard
19, 1990,
Levitt,
June
ministrator,
on
Herb
refusal
Judge Seitz’
about
complaints
her
voice
were
complaints
These
with her.
communicate
Admin-
State Court
from the
relayed
personnel
Memorandum, September
1987.
Administrative
requiring
for the
argued
reversal
Judge
it
error
Judge Costello
showed that
an exhibit which
to exclude
master
policy.
Judge
"chain of command”
follow the
demanded
evidence.
to hear additional
the motion
commission denied
submitting
proof by
"chain of com
made an offer
Seitz has
appendix of exhibits.
memo in an
mand”
any
testimony
this issue rendered
voluminous
think the
We
exhibit harm-
regarding
of this
the master’s exclusion
possible error
less.
Mr. Levitt and Mr. things, pending among discussed, and adoption other Judge Seitz indicated that Mrs. cases. properly. preparing the files Leonard was July 1990, 12, the State Court Administrator On indicating adoption Judge Seitz, wrote to matters were respect languishing and, with to a noting apparent particular case, refusal give direction to a "to discuss the case or veteran attempted employee times court who has several you” objectionable. was to discuss the case with Specific requiring action, were listed as and and cases Judge Seitz was directed to hasten these cases weekly apprise the State Court Administrator to in writing regarding progress dispositions made.
The State Court Administrator did not receive a single Judge attempted from She contact Seitz. August, calling weekly him until the end of but him. He neither returned her calls never reached nor reported requested. by mail as got Judge testified, however, that he never messages any phone Admin- State Court "the istrator. He claims that entire issue became confusion, one of missed cues and lack of commu- [himself], the scao and the Court nication between Although Pace.” he did not contact Administrator Administrator, he did discuss the the State Court matters with the addition,
Region I In Court Administrator. Region the assistant I Administrator In re Seitz Opinion of the Cоurt Pace, director, Mr. kept the court with neglected in touch visiting regarding After cases. August, County the Re- Court Probate Monroe the cases gion satisfied I Administrator July the State letter of 1990, in the listed progressing satisfacto- were Administrator Court rily, State a memorandum addressed and he August effect. 31 to that Court Administrator not to dis- Mrs. Leonard had advised Mr. Pace (cid:127) everything put Judge to him and to turb writing. number of cases Thus, she documented requests to had submitted written she which requests hearing him were not These dates. to set responded Seitz, led to another which Administrator. the State Court intervention Court Adminis- the State 31, 1990, On October *21 grow- respondent again the about wrote to trator adoption ing delays She included in certain cases. concerned. which she was list of cases about a Judge the list at once asked to review Seitz was they would be her of the dates to advise and scheduled why they hearing explain could for or response expressly that a indicated The letter not. expected no later than November 9. unsigned Judge re- Seitz’ The scao received sponse, 14, November on November 9, dated 1990. spent signifi- Judge a that he had Seitz testified response; preparing how- of time cant amount response that he indicates ever, of that review twenty-one to cases to the made no reference which his The master directed. attention had been the files and had had not reviewed that he found responding hearing to the Instead of dates. set no Judge responded requests the scao, made perfor- seven-page complaint the about with the conclusion of Leonard. The of Mrs. mance referring court the files to he was was that letter he sched- and that would for review Pace director Mich 590 Opinion of the Court days hearings fourteen within the cases for ule the director. of readiness certification bypass trying apparently Judge Mrs. Seitz was poor ground done a she had the that Leonard on preparing however, master job files; in proper order in of the files were that most found hearing, Judge ready action. At for ready ánd the cases were ten of conceded hearing. for have been set could Judge letter, Seitz made After November the State with further effort communicate no at He testified or her staff. Administrator Court response beyond hearing any letter re- The scao found redundant. would have been response. inadequate spondent’s letter to be an Deputy 1990, Ad- 16, State Court On November Region Ferry I Ad- Assistant directed ministrator ministrator Ulrich inspect adoption files Judge pending cases Seitz’ court and to schedule attending a seminar him. Seitz was for Florida and could however, reached; Mrs. not be and found checked his docket book Leonard January open open 1991, All files an date. be Ulrich, the assistance Mr. reviewed were A made Mrs. Leonard. list was of Mr. Pace and Ferry, a letter to Mr. who then wrote faxed to respondent. inspection 16 letter stated
The November post- adoption no reason for files showed question. scheduling ponement the cases certain cases were set also indicated that letter *22 parties hearing January 1991, 8, and that all on that letter other cases had notified. The listed been Judge require hearing only Seitz that not a but did decide a sign order, and directed that motion or an In re Seitz Opinion op the Court possible Judge no do so as soon as later Seitz 3.29 than December respond
Judge letter, Seitz did not to the nor any comply. taken to The master found action begin Judge quite did not even it clear that Seitz although Judge any files, and, of the Seitz work on example argued give did, he an that he could any found that of action taken on files. The master only of the files would have taken a few review hours and have been able Judge so, that, he had Seitz done would by complete cases
to requested Ferry. by Mr. 3 as Because December Mr. December on December nothing Judge Ferry Seitz heard again Judge 1990, 3, he wrote to requesting report. request This ignored.30 was also Judge 12, 1990, Seitz scheduled
On December pretrial January 8, 1991, two conferences adoption hearings day the were scheduled. same going Apparently, these cases were to be dismissed prosecutor, they for trial to but were listed prosecutor’s efforts to resolve them. further Upon learning Judge Seitz had scheduled two January 8, 1991, the court staff cases for trial concluded adoption Judge going ignore Seitz was by Deputy Ferry. The cases scheduled hearing merely required Ten cases were set for and nine others signature or a decision on a motion. failed, complaint Judge persistently alleges re fused, neglected respond inquiries attenipting In or of the scao. charge, Judge against this Seitz offered evidence document to defend ing objected officials. The examiner his communication scao hearsay the admission of such evidence as ruled that showing and irrelevant. The master purpose the limited the evidence was admissible for however, communicating scao; Seitz was with the were ruled the contents of the documents inadmissible. ruling We do not find an abuse of discretion master. complaints of the communications were to initiate with the scao Most response inquiries those and were not in to scao and directives. As to directly responsive, relatively that were we find few communications large their omission from evidence to be harmless view of the responded inquiries that were not to. number of scao *23 441 590 Mich Opinion of the Court
scheduling the to the communicated was scao, Judge given to that, Seitz’ failure found master respond Ferry’s Deputy of November letters
to Judge had the that Seitz 4 and fact and December that dead- the were taken no action on matters 3, it reasonable to believe lined for December Judge ignore January 8 the intended to that hearings. Seitz Ferry Deputy 14, Mr. instructed On December go County Monroe to and Mr. Ulrich to to Levitt hearings January 8 for the obtain the files judge, needed, if could be order that an outside apprised asked the the matters. When about Judge responded apparent conflict, that there Seitz handling adoption problem in the would be no juvenile cases, take the matters would not that long.31 He told them that the files were also they attorney’s office, available, that were at his up Monday, picked 17. could December be on actually Judge Seitz’ The files were office para- had time. He testified that he become entire noid about the scao copy kept files to and that he changes made would so that no could be that up.” [him] "set assign
Deputy Ferry Judge decided Kirken- approved previously dall, Admin- who had been judge Hall as an outside hear istrator adoption light stand-by basis, cases on Judge attorney had Seitz’ statement that files. 17, 1990, Mr. Ulrich went back
On December though when he Even Mr. Ulrich testified that scheduled respondent’s secretary adoption he told her that other cases with the day, testified he took the matters could scheduled he also be scheduling by Judge juvenile as an cases Seitz indication adoption Judge cases. Seitz intend to hear the He stated did not Judge he the time of December at understood that Kirkendall his conversation Judge already assign made the decision had been adoption to hear the cases. In re Opinion op the Court Monroe, files, retrieved the and delivered them to Judge Kirkendall. 21, 1990, Seitz sent letters
On December prospective adoptive parents to at least six indicat- adoptions ing that their had been detained since preparation spring unsatisfactory because of *24 adoption by employee. a court The letter went on to state that he had obtained the files from the any employee, them, mistakes, reviewed corrected hearing adoptions and set their cases for so that complete Christmas, would be before but that the apparently upon Administrator, learn- State Court ing assigned adoption files, that had the had he obtained Judge judge. the cases to an outside Seitz deputy "This State Court stated: ministrator —who is neither a action Ad-
lawyer [sic] or prevented your adoption effectively —has being from finalized as I had before Christmas attempted sorry your to do. I’m that case was one caught up of the few which cratic in was the bureau- maneuvering.” Five of the six known cases in which letters were sent were on the list of cases Judge that Seitz had been instructed to take ac- tion on December 3. The sixth case was on the January 8, 1991, list of cases scheduled for but appeared to the master to be one that could have Judge easily willing been concluded had Seitz been appropriate to take action.32 January Judge 8, 1991, On Kirkendall heard Judge cases scheduled for that date. the courthouse and could have heard the cases Seitz was at himself. The master it found that was not miscon- Judge duct for Seitz to schedule two bench trials day light acknowledgment on that of his that he adoption hearings could handle the because the complaint charge respondent’s The does not December 21 letters found, however, adoptive parents as misconduct. The master that they respondent’s regard integrity repute lack of for the revealed of the court. Mich 590 Opinion of the Court long.33Relying that find- not take
trials would ing by Judge argues master, the Seitz inconsistent. of the commission is recommendation Respondent he or refused to denies that failed argues perform judicial he He was duties. hearing ready within to schedule the cases receipt days of a certification fourteen ready. were Director Pace that cases Court Judge that most of cases Seitz further testified problems significant no and could had at issue hearing any mas- set for event. have been respondent’s to schedule the failure ter found hearings absolutely was inexсusable. argues findings by
Judge the master great weight against on this issue are fail the context which to consider evidence operate. Judge Seitz was forced to besieged, argues that it more Mrs. that he felt his, fault and that he was not Leonard’s than given chance his docket. to clear agreed
The master found and commission *25 handling Judge in of the Seitz’ behavior the that adoption in cases misconduct office. constituted persis- specifically, the commission found a More perform judicial pursuant duties to tent failure 9.205(C)(2);34 statutory di- a violation the MCR highest adoption the cases are to have rective scheduling priority possible an to the earliest end 710.25(1);
disposition, MCL MSA high 27.3178(555.25)(1);35 a violation of the stan- 33 anyone dismissals. Seitz never told trials were He long. they simply would not take said 34 guilty judge judge . . in office if . A of misconduct perform judicial . . . persistently his or her duties. fails to 9.205(C)(2).] [MCR Adoption provides: Code The chapter proceedings be considered
All under this shall In re Opinion of the Court dards of conduct preserve necessary integ- rity of the judiciary pursuant to Canon 1 of the Conduct;36 Code of Judicial a failure dispose business promptly contrary 3A(5);37 to Canon and a persistent failure to diligently discharge his ad- ministrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence judicial administration, and facili- performance tate the of the administrative respon- 3B(1).38 sibilities of court officials contrary to Canon undisputed essentially epi- evidence of this sode clearly demonstrates yet example another respondent’s seemingly tireless and sometimes while effective efforts to avoid being "set-up” doing his best to isolate himself from people proce- dures that offended him. great time,
A deal of personnel, and administra- tive expended effort was to bring about a routine disposition group of a of uneventful cases that could have accomplished been by engaging kind of routine keeps communication court- rooms and court dockets functioning throughout the state. find,
We commission, as did the master and the this episode constituted misconduct under Code of Judicial Conduct and the Standards Judicial prescribed Conduct as 9.205 by MCR subject respondent should to sanction._ highest priority have the and shall be advanced on the court provide practicable disposition. docket so as to for their earliest 710.25(1); 27.3178(555.25)(1).] MSA [MCL 36See n 24 for text. judge dispose promptly A should of the court. business 3A(5).] [Canon diligently discharge A should his administrative re sponsibilities, professional competence judicial maintain ad ministration, performance and facilitate the of the administra *26 responsibilities judges tive of other and court officials. [Canon 3B(1).] 590 441 Mich the Court THE SCAO
E. FAILURE FILE REPORTS WITH TO charged Judge complaint The formal neglected consistently refused, or failed, file by reports required as MCR "Undecided Matters” reports respondent failed to file such The 8.107. September May 1989, 1, 1989, 1, due on January January May 1990, 1, 1, 1, 1990, report September 1, 1990, was filed The 1991. de- 26, occurred 1990.39These failures November spite many telephone reminders the letters Region the I Administrator’s Office.40 from manage- judge’s case monitor neglects The scao cannot reports re- if the file the ment quired refusing the rule. master stated court the a failure to to adhere to rule is responsibilities discharge under the administrative filings aсcepted tardy The fact the scao rule. respondent his failure to the does excuse from comply the rule. consti- found that this The commission behavior prejudicial clearly the administra- tuted conduct 9.205(C)(4);41 justice contrary to MCR tion of responsibilities discharge failure to administrative performance diligently and to facilitate responsibilities of court officials administrative 3B(1) contrary of Judicial to Canon Code 26, report Although September filed due on 1 and November 26, 1990, 20, there dated November 1990. As November were 20, 1990, scheduling July as far from back as cases submitted requested part hearings. July cases were termination These visiting judge group of cases to be heard on the January scheduled 8, report Judge 1991. not include these in his filed Seitz did 26, 1990, they although, arguably, have been should listed. November 1, report September as the 8.107. If Seitz had filed MCR requires, had to cases. rule he not have list these court would Levitt, scao, Region sent letters on Mr. I Administrator of 1989, 1990, 1990, 30, 1989, 20, June March June August November 9, 1990, 1990. November n 25 for text. See *27 In re 623 Opinion of the Court Conduct,42 Carstensen, see In re 316 889 NW2d (Iowa, 1981); and a violation of MCR 8.107.43 undisputed factually charge
This is another comply explicit misconduct for failure to with an agree routine administrative task. We with the finding accept commission’s of misconduct and subject it recommendation that should be the disciplinary action.
II. MITIGATION DEFENSE Judge urges mitigat- this Court to consider ing determining remedy. factors in He does not exemplary assert that his conduct was at all or in good faith, but asks that his conduct be viewed in the context of the circumstances at the Monroe County Court. The Probate master summarized Judge argument Seitz’ as follows: argued respondent is an adjust- suffered [I]t ment disorder primarily caused stress induced antagonistic judge, aggravated an fellow by an
inept or indifferent or biased Court Administra- abuse, tor’s dependence staff. This led to alcohol Mrs. Paz an "ally,” anxiety, as and withdrawal. threatened, perhaps He felt even to the state of paranoia._
42 n 38 See for text. 43MCR 8.107 states: shall, Every judge day January, trial on the first business May, September year, of each file with the state court prescribed by full information on administrator a certified statement in the form administrator, containing
the state court any judge matter submitted to the for decision more 4 than judge months earlier which remains undecided. The shall also set forth in the cided. For the statement reason a matter remains unde- purpose of this rule the time of submission is the argument presentation time the last or in the matter was made expiration brief, filing or the of the time allowed for the last as may report, the case be. If the has no cases to the word signed report required. “none” on a 590 441 Mich 624 op the Court respon- rejected commission The master mitigation defense. dent’s previously no "There is Court has stated: This 'good as a be considered faith’ should doubt mitigating misconduct but to the acts of
factor
charges of miscon-
defense to
as an affirmative
449,
Laster,
461;
NW2d
In re
Mich
duct.”
(1979);
267,
n
Lawrence,
Mich
In re
(1983).
14;
In the fact that view of In re op the Court purpose judicial discipline, this does not leave mitigation.44 Nevertheless, much room for we preclude possibility personal would not mitigating circumstances could be considered in determining discipline imposed when, to be only compromise when, it and and foremost cess. ence to a does not the first
goal protecting judicial pro- Any exercising conflict between such defer-
personal problem of the officeholder and judicial the demands of the office would need to be integrity reconciled in favor of the of the office. A judgeship privilege, right. is a not a judicial one commits misconduct he not [W]hen
only
cial
cordingly,
potential
marks himself as a
subject
judi-
discipline,
denigrates
he
an institution. Ac-
judicial
discipline
decision on
must be
responsive
tion,
significant
to a
institutional
considera-
preservation
"the
integrity
all,
judicial system.”
integrity,
Institutional
after
re
is the core of institutional
effectiveness.
[In
Probert,
210, 225;
(1981).]
411 Mich
III. CONCLUSION
*29
specific
instances of misconduct set forth
degrees
varying
resulting
are of
of
seriousness
varying degrees
operations
of harm to the
and
44
Performance,
297,
See Kennick v Comm on Judicial
50 Cal 3d
(1990) ("Protection
342;
public
integrity
reputation Court Probate Monroe of the generally. justice of the administration and judgment of none However, in our considered event, an isolated is instances of misconduct these inattention, lack of of the result nor to be sure knowledge, part incompetence, of a rather but or destructive, wilful, contentious, of mosaic sometimes conclude that of the behavior ingredients. prompted to We are malicious behavior. totality when the this is an occasion larger of its than the sum disciplinary required to take we are Oftentimes solely of a of the actions on the basis action speculate being only judicial officer, able while regarding misdeeds. In the motivations behind respondent’s casе, however, because this penchant feelings, thoughts recording glimpse just at these more than we are afforded pretty feelings. thoughts It is not a innermost picture. including great hearings, days After nine of respondent testimony himself, the deal of master, respondent Judge Peterson, R. found William manipulative, calculating,
to be "a feelings arrogant man, for others.” We without disagree. cannot per- exposing pleasure we take no
While judicial in the of a troubled brother sonal travails family, responsibility for the administration our including justice, review of a fair and measured requires allegations against him, no less. expressions Seitz, it examine the As we belligerence, up specific impressions conjures disrespectful- hostility, bitterness, vindictiveness, perversity will and mo- ness, and considerable discordantly characteristics resonate tive. These compared Conduct, the Code of Judicial when specifically: more *30 In re Opinion of Court judge patient, dignified, A should be and courte- witnesses, litigants, jurors, lawyers,
ous to others with whom he deals in his official and
capacity, require lawyers and should of his similar conduct of and staff, officials, subject and others court to his 3A(3).] direction and control. [Canon judiciary by Public confidence is eroded irresponsible improper by judges. conduct A or judge impropriety appearance must all and avoid expect impropriety. subject He must to be the public scrutiny. accept constant He must therefore might restrictions on his conduct that be viewed as by ordinary burdensome citizens and should do freely willingly. so and [Canon 2A.]
(1) judge diligently discharge A should his ad- responsibilities, professional ministrative competence maintain administration, judicial and facili- performance respon- tate the of the administrative judges sibilities of other and court officials.
(2) A should direct his staff court subject high officials his control observe fidelity, diligence standards litigants, courtesy witnesses, jurors, lawyers and others they capacity. whom deal their official 3B(1)-(2).] [Canon conclude, therefore, We both actions expressed and his as declarations he went about duties, the exercise of his he has demonstrated an firmly attitude, mind-set, leaves us con- woefully judicial qualities vinced that he is unfit for office. only He not exhibited a lack of the judicial temperament springs, which but has he pattern injudicious tempera- exhibited a distinct ment and conduct. precious judicial
There are few canons of ethics judicial and standards of caped conduct that have es- respondent. However, the behavior of the totality, because we view his behavior in its we 441 Mich Levin, J. prefer standards those canons to isolate *31 go than rather his misbehavior heart of findings to the basing of manifestations on individual our Accordingly, underlying we find difficulties. his beyond habitually respondent is doubt that meaning 1963, intemperate art of Const within above-quoted of the Code 6, 30, canons § and of the mis- Conduct, constitutes all of which Judicial (4). 9.205(C)(3)and MCR in office under conduct respondent’s to be behavior We consider pervasive sufficiently his continu- serious and prejudicial "clearly judicial office would be in ation justice,” and, therefore, administration to the part adopt Commis- Judicial Tenure of the respon- removes the sion’s recommendation judicial office.46 dent from 7.317(C)(3), the Clerk is di- MCR Pursuant judgment order forthwith. rectеd to issue C.J., Riley, Griffin, Boyle, Cavanagh, J. JJ., Brickley, Mallett, concurred Supreme following opinion with the Clerk of the was filed The 3, 1993, opinion February of the after the release Court on Reporter. February Court on 1993— dissenting (concurring part in in J. Levin, majority part). Probate states that Monroe The Judge McCauley Seitz, his actions both James statements, the exercise as he went about his and of his attitude, a
duties, an had "demonstrated firmly that he is mind-set, us convinced that leaves only woefully judicial He not exhib- unfit for office. judicial qualities from which ited a lack of springs, temperament exhibited a dis- but he has 29-30, Jenkins, supra we decline to at the reasons set forth 46 For that would adopt portion recommendation of the commission’s holding judicial again respondent office. from ever bar the In re Levin, J. temperament injudicious pattern and con- tinct duct.”1 support graphic majority for some of finds
The personal memo and cassette these conclusions tape secretary, Cindy Paz Seitz to his light Cameron Cameron,2 came to when which States District an action in the United commenced approxi- County against Monroe Seitz and Court mately year after the memo and nine months to a 1Ante, p 627. 627-628) (ante, pp majority committed acts The concludes that Seitz office,persistently perform failed to his that constituted misconduct duties, habitually intemperate, judicial and that conduct prejudicial justice. clearly to the administration of language provi- terminology of the constitutional follows the authorizing discipline of a on the recommendation sion Judicial Tenure Commission: *32 commission, judicial of tenure On recommendation censure, suspend salary,
supreme may with or without court felony, physical for conviction of a or retire or remove mental duties, duties, disability prevents performance judicial which of office, persistent perform failure to misconduct preju- intemperance clearly habitual or conduct that is justice. supreme dicial to the administration of make rules dentiality The court shall implementing providing this section and for confi- 6, privilege proceedings. and art [Const 30(2).Emphasis § added.] Mikesell, 517, 535-536; But this said in In re 396 Mich 243 Court (1976): NW2d 86 "habitually intemperate” in the rule While as stated court intemperance” are and "habitual capable as stated in the constitution being ways, respondent defined in several con- only applicable meaning that the is the abuse of alcohol. tends agree. [Emphasis We added.] finding, finding, support a There is no nor evidence sufficient to in the sense referred to in the Constitution as Seitz abused alcohol construed in Mikesell. 2Ante, 605-607, majority excerpts pp from a where the set forth 15, 1989, secretary/ Judge dated Seitz to his memo recorder, December 608-610, Cameron, ante, Paz, pp and then Mrs. later Mrs. sent, tape majority excerpts set forth from a cassette where February was 9, 1990, secretary by that she Seitz to his after he learned engaged marry employee, another court Lawrence Cameron. 441 Mich Levin, J. tape theretofore These Seitz. were sent cassette private unprofes- reflect Seitz’ communications opin- relationship her, his unfavorable with sional Judge Harry Seitz, Probate Monroe ions of former Judge Joseph Costello, Probatе a Monroe and of serving McCauley respondent Seitz, James with aligned persons were other court his view that adversaries. and were Costello with tape reflect that Seitz also cassette memo and expected personal loyalty percent hundred one she view and and demanded from Cameron personnel as adversaries. treat other court major- assumption, in the reflected The unstated being history ity’s has a that "Seitz statement environment in an amicable unable to work anyone, employees,”3 authority, people co-workers, or be it responsible for County that Seitz was Monroe in the and "turmoil”4 "discord” Probate Court. of the two decide which did not
The master responsible judges was Monroe Probate discord and turmoil.5 i and former that Seitz The record does show 3Ante, p 594. conclusions, p findings 1. of fact and Master’s tending to show that declined to consider evidence The master responsible, responsible, guilty or also of misconduct Costello say, The master did however:
for the discord and turmoil. staff, associates, They have overwhelmed [Seitz Costello] *33 the Judicial Tenure Office and
the State Court Administrator’s another, complaints against one and have with Commission generated Staff, complaints impressive from others. volume of an turmoil, pawns caught up have become between in the two, suspicion compelled and in an to work environment memoranda, employ- hostility. was reduced to written Contact judges compiled events and dossiers ees made notes of [Emphasis each other. added.] In re Seitz 631 Levin, J. judge Harry together. It Seitz were unable work appears, they together, rather, did work al- though personal there were serious differences. Judge Harry retired,
After Seitz dis- charged Harry secretary/reporter. Seitz’ The ma- jority secretary/ to an adverts action filed reporter claiming wrongful discharge.6 Surely, this thereby Court does not saying to be wish understood as wrongful discharge, that in an action for may simply assume, court because an action such employer filed, has been that the to work unable employees. in an amicable environment with amity prevailed The record shows that after appointed probate judge by Costello was Governor, year signs half, for about a and a until posted charging him were on Seitz’ door with absenteeism. Seitz claimed that Costello was re- sponsible, tending
and there is some evidence support claim;7 the master made no definitive finding regard. in that
The record shows Costello were together indeed unable to work The record does not after mid-1987. apart show, however, that, conflict, from the Seitz/Costello Seitz was unable employees, to work with court other than Daniel Gentner8 and Irene Leonard.9 Seitz’ conflict State Court Administrator Hall arose when she "cooperate” directed that he with Leonard.10 disparaging comments set forth in the tape memo and cassette from Seitz to Cameron concerning ity employees persons court author- support majority’s
do not conclusion 6Ante, p 595. jury and other have found submissible issues on This courts
evidence no less tenuous. part vn. See part See vm. part xi. See *34 441 Mich by Opinion Levin, J. employees with court to work Seitz is unable per- and immature Mature authority. persons they subordinatеs bosses and sons work with whom, opinions in private, not like and about do expressed by those as expressed derogatory as are to his secre- communications private in these Seitz it in put mistakes was to many of Seitz’ tary. One had written adversary "that mine writing —would a book.”11 from office be removed may properly in a what he said or for thought,
for what he Discipline may relationship. personal private, misconduct, not for for imposed only be properly personal relationship. private, in a misspeech in late agree could not Seitz and Costello When of Appeals chief Court judge, 1987 who should be chief appointed judge Judge John H. Gillis the then Probate Court County the Monroe Levitt, Region I State Court Herbert Chief Justice. then Payant, Administrator, Robert Administrator, had recommended that State Court named Costello as chief appointed. Seitz be Gillis tern on Seitz’ recommendation. judge pro "discord” and "turmoil” familiar with the Fully Court, Probate Levitt County in the Monroe Payant recommendation, sug- which made that mind, not, "demon- Seitz had their gests that mind-set, attitude, an strated [left them] unfit woefully that he is firmly convinced office,” a lack of or that he had "exhibited judicial temperament judicial from which qualities pattern a distinct or had "exhibited springs,” and conduct.” temperament injudicious
ii Administrator, Hall, State Court Marilyn K. Job, Book of 31:35. In re Levin, J. Court Administra- Special appointed had been who June, Court Probate County for the Monroe tor as 1989, after Gillis’ term chief some time concluded, the Judicial Tenure Commission wrote Seitz’ investigation conduct an requesting 11, 1990. *35 12, and December September letter, the the September Four months before 1990,12 Commission, 15, May on Tenure Judicial advising that the commis- Costello wrote its number had review sion concluded and had concluded against them filed grievances to cause present, insufficient there was "at that either of them. complaints” against formal issue A had "both” judges continued letter of the unbecoming members "displayed behavior re- bickering only has not petty Your judiciary. Commission, also the attention the but quired Supreme of the Court.” the direct intervention The letter continued: episodes your If war each individual with reviewed, culpability for
other were
each
probably
individually as
many flare-ups could
be
signed.
be of
Such an endeavor would
doubtful
balance,
totality
when
of the events
value. On
examined,
to
you
equally
are
blame
is
both
21
had,
16,
February
This was
months after Cameron
on
several
1990, resigned
employment
County
Monroe
Probate
her
with the
21,
Court,
action
when she commenced an
but before November
claiming
against
he had
States District Court
Seitz in
United
impending change
constructively discharged her
in her
because of the
to
former wife of Darwin Paz
wife of Lawrence
marital status from
private
tape
came
It
then that
memo
cassette
Cameron. was
light.
inability judges Judge McCauley of the court’s two James — Costello, Judge Joseph get along Seitz and Chief A. Jr. —to at personal professional the and level.” appointments disputes disagreements Such and later and coverage, have received extensive media all to the detriment of proper justice County the Probate Court and in the court administration of in the Monroe resulting public in the erosion of confidence system. administrator, special originally Ms. Hall’s service as which term, required provide also intends to continue indefinitely a six month has been extended interposition for the direct of her staff. The Commission monitoring the Monroe Probate Court including filing and will not hesitate to take formal action charges, of problems. should there be a recurrence of the above described In re Seitz Levin, J. "you both be aware should that stated The letter being grievances The dismissed. are that these episodes of further no tolerate will Commission repetition any of this are warned nature. You likely action in formal result will such conduct added.) (Emphasis against you.” episodes this "further is no evidence There repetition "any conduct.” of such or of nature” 1990, 11, letter, on December Hall, in her second requesting investigate Commission Judicial Tenure successful
Seitz, "we have been said feuding private public eliminating which and ” added.) (Emphasis plagued court. allegations against principal Seitz, set new alleged letter, were the December forth "cooperate” Leonard, a Monroe with failure prepared employee, County adoption who Court Probate hearing disposition, and his and cases responsive alleged to communi- to more failure be Ferry, Hall and John and directives cations allega- regarded Clearly, deputy. the new Hall hеr genre, they against as as of a different tions supporting regard the evidence were, did not and "public allegation and as evidence this new feuding.” private
B May 1990, letter, also dated In another and associate Justice the Chief wrote commission years advising justices the last two that over staff Commission "inundated the had and Costello impropriety,” counter-charges charges commission had concluded exag- charges either were if not all of "[m]os£, thorough gerated unsubstantiated,” that a or *37 "yielded investigation evidence which no had by the Commission.” action merit formal would 441 Mich Opinion by Levin, J. charges Among so found the Judicial Ten- ure Commission to ner Commission, complaint lacked merit is the Gent- have
contempt episode,14 which the Judicial Tenure
following filing of the formal deserving case, in the instant found the "severest sanction.”
The Judicial Tenure Commission renewed its request Supreme May 16, 1989, that Court assign away judges visiting one two status period.
from his court for a six-month explained it commission was uncertain whether formal its resolution of the "matter” without
complaint "discourage would further bick- ering judges. between the . . . The Commission judges being extremely views both as immature.” problem Part of the was that the "Monroe County enough simply generate Probate Court does not occupy judges.”
work the time of both Judges agreed Seitz and Costello had both enough keep "there was not work at the court to busy. judges them them, Both admitted that either of
working assistance of their full- referee, time could handle the entire case load.” Appeals Judge Gillis, Court of advised the who served in judges
commission "had too much time on their hands. He further stated that provided the lack of work at the court them with opportunity to meddle in each other’s affairs.” The Judicial Tenure Commission said that as- signing County judges away each of the from Monroe periods
for six-month would them enable judicial keep duties, to fulfill their full-time would they them would than court, busier are at their own hopefully energy reduce the time and "they perpetuate would have to their feud.” making recommendation,
In this the Judicial fully Commission, Tenure as or even more aware part See vn. *38 re In by Levin, J. and the "discord” of Payant, and Levitt than Court, Probate County the Monroe in "turmoil” not, by had that Seitz concluded had surely attitude, mind- a an 1990, 15, "demonstrated May he is woe- that convinced firmly set, that it] [left he had office,” or that judicial unfit for fully from which qualities a lack "exhibited a "exhibited or had springs,” temperament judicial and temperament injudicious of pattern distinct conduct.” 1990, and May between occurred
Nothing al- Seitz’ but complaint formal the filing of in mov- Leonard with "cooperate” to failure leged responsive to be more and docket adoption ing deputy, her Hall and communications from to Ferry.
This the advice adopt Court did as- be judges one of tenure commission for a his court away status visiting to signed period. six-month
m charges found specific five to the turning Before pattern "a demonstrated to have the majority there misconduct,” I note gross judicial involve- Costello’s publicize to need would be no unfor- or the "turmoil” "discord” and in the ment Judicial occurred before tunate events 15, 1990, toor May letters Commission’s Tenure por- the majority’s those letters but advert part on events based of Seitz trayal oc: Ten- 15, 1990, the Judicial May curred before the incidents reopen decision Commission’s ure role —that played Costello of which —in several charge of specific the post-May, preceded refusal dockets and adoption neglect "wilful the scao.” requests respond 441 Mich Opinion by Levin, J. dispose I of the other four incidents with would suspension. public or a brief The other censure four are:
—"unprofessional relationship with hostile employees.”15 terminated attitude toward Cameron unprofessional relationship February, 1990, complaint year almost a before the formal December, 1990, filed. Hall said in that "we had eliminating public pri been successful vate feuding plagued which the Court.” reports —"failure to file A scao.”16 *39 report policy November, 1990, filed in and the "wipe was to then the slate clean.”17 telephone listening —"installation of a device” majority impos- in 1988.18The asserts that it is not ing discipline on this basis. contempt power” in
—"Abuse of 1989.19 The Commission, Judicial Tenure May in its letters of complaints 1990, declined to file formal charge.20 based on this
IV specific charges One of the "[un- five asserted professional relationship with and hostile attitude employees.” toward
A personal tape, memo and cassette which light came to when Cameron commenced an action 15 part See iv. 16 part See v. 17 following See text n 25. part See vi. part See vn. part See n. In re Levin, J. County,21 against at set forth Monroe Seitz and disparagingly, spoke length by majority, some expletives obscenities, Costello, about with personnel Harry Seitz, Gillis, other scao Hall and assigned supervisory role. been who had that, however, is, no evidence outside There relationship personal privacy Cameron, with of his disparagingly spoke them, in either about his Seitz courtroom, public private, in in or or
or otherwise courtroom, in or otherwise that, either in spoke disparagingly public private, he or spoke except report employees, one that he court employee derogatory a court about terms to employees.22 court other subject agree majority I insisting, discipline memo, in the for criticism and employees as treat court ad- that Cameron other demanding versaries, for that she not attend a party December, 1989, scheduled Christmas discharge threatening if Costello, her she criticism, did, for the immoderate tone of his tape, of Cameron’s decision to in the cassette marry Larry Cameron. appear did, fact,
It does not Cameron employees as other court adversaries. treat
B language private memo and cassette The exple- replete tape Cameron, to with Seitz unprofessional, obscenities, was most tives and inappropriate unprofessional was indeed an and unwise.23Theirs
relationship. private,. But it was a 21 n 12. See 22 Not, language majority, used abusive in as claimed he employee speaking about Costello. to that court Cameron, majority quotes to in the cassette Seitz’ reference The necessary point tape, "psychotic I it out as a cunt.” believe signed handwritten notes addressed record shows that Cameron 441 Mich Levin, J.
personal relationship. There is no claim of sexual harassment.24 relationship
Theirs was a consensual until Cam- marry Larry Cameron. eron decided should have accepted marry her decision to him. Rather, he made and delivered to her the cassette tape, expressing February, 1990, distress, in immoderately criticizing ing expand- decision, her disparaging
on the remarks set forth in his December, earlier memo of 1989.
c suspension Neither nor removal is warranted private, unprofessional because Seitz maintained personal relationship secretary. with his suspension warranted,
isNor or removal private, personal evidenced, basis that he com- munications, a hostile attitude toward court em- ployees, absent misconduct in his courtroom or public, repetition otherwise or the of such dis- paraging large. evidence, at remarks There is no find, nor did the master that Seitz translated the "hostile attitude” into actual abuse court em- ployees, public private. Misspeech either in or in private, personal relationship judicial in a is not misconduct.
v specific charge reports Another is "failure to file PC,” psychotic Seitz as "CLS/a/k/a an abbreviation for cunt. She similarly unprofessional. addressed him with initials that were majority quotes appear the master’s statement it would trying Cameron, relationship that Seitz was to create a sexual and, majority opinion, gave inappro set as forth in the Cameron priate gifts. necessary point I believe it out that the record also occasion, gave reflects that on one candy Cameron Seitz a hunk of chocolate portion anatomy, formed to simulate a of the female with a suggesting might handy handwritten note it come if a woman was unavailable over the weekend. *41 641 In re Levin, J. to with scao six Seitz failed file the scao.” every required by reports filed the court rule to be concerning cases. undecided four months did, in that Seitz does not indicate The record backlog the within fact, of undecided cases have a meaning the court rule.25 of Region I, which
Levitt, Administrator for Court customary to Monroe, that it was testified included treat reports resolved once as to file such failure policy they "It of our He was a are filed. said: previous wipe accept of the clean slate office to —to wipe Region office, 1 the slate —at least reports, reports previously-owed if clean of indicated outstanding.” no that there were cases percent approximately five of Hall testified judges approximately fail to hundred trial six report timely. file this Michigan reported con- no cases in are
There discipline imposition cerning for failure of reports. majority of cites a decision file The such Supreme Court, Carstensen, 316 In re the Iowa 1981). (Iowa, judge There, NW2d suspended days twenty-nine pay for
without reports, timely fifty than some failure file more which, filed, omitted cases should when have been reported._ provides: rule court shall, day January, judge Every on the first business trial May, September year, the state court each file with prescribed by in the form a certified statement administrator administrator, containing full information on the state court any judge more than 4 submitted to the for decision matter judge shall also which undecided. The
months earlier remains unde- the statement the reason a matter remаins set forth in purpose rule the time of submission is the cided. For the of this argument presentation made time in the matter was the last or brief, filing expiration the last as time allowed for or the the report, may If no the word be. has required. cases case Emphasis signed report 8.107. "none” on a [MCR added.] 441 Mich Opinion by Levin, J. suspension nor removal of Seitz is war- Neither *42 ranted on this basis.26
VI specific charge Another is "installation of a listening telephone in 1988. device” agree majority I with the that this Court would affirming finding not be warranted in that Seitz had installed a the master’s
telephone listening de- home. vice Cameron’s
A agree I do with the statement that "undis- puted facts demonstrate Seitz’ embroilment employee’s dispute, in his marital use of his own recording surreptitiously device to record conversa- knowledge employee tions, and in- that also tended to commit and had he commenced what felony:”27 believed to abe Cameron, —While Seitz discussed with dispute, Paz, when she was her marital there is no evidence that he became "embroiled” in dispute, possibly that other than as her confi- dant. readily
—While Seitz
conceded
he sur-
reptitiously
telephone
recorded his own
con-
versations,
is not claimed to constitute
judicial
offense,
an
and is not
misconduct.
judi-
—Nor does it constitute an offense or
26
jurisdictions
similarly
Courts in other
have
so concluded. In re
Long,
719;
(1989),
Supreme
Kan
P2d
where the
Court of
imposed
public
failing
reports
Kansas
a
censure for
to file
of matters
advisement;
Alvino,
92;
taken under
In re
100 NJ
cial had commenced intended and Cameron felony. to commit a
B joined her in that Seitz Cameron testified listening third-party installing in her device a felony. the evidence home, repeatedly Rather than consider master, the Seitz, which
offered Court, admit commission, refuse to now this tending impeach credi- evidence, Cameron’s into bility,28 majority it need to finds no states finding accept the master’s whether decide adopting finding testimony did that he her felony. commit testimony disputed that he had Cameron’s *43 telephone third-party
purchased and installed a
listening
her. There is no evidence
device for
encouraged
aided, abetted,
or otherwise as-
telephone
committing
listen-
in
Cameron
sisted
ing
felony
dis-
other
the testimonial
device
than
pute
The
to
the Court decides not
resolve.
obliged
proceed
Court, therefore,
to
on the basis
is
commit-
aid or
Cameron in
that Seitz did not
ting
abet
felony.
again,
judicial
is,
misconduct
It
not an offense or
majority opinion
of this
8-10
the
for the substance
See ns
evidence.
husband,
Paz,
with
noteworthy
Darwin
filed
Also
is that Cameron’s
Commission,
made
on the basis of statements
the Judicial Tenure
Seitz,
Cameron,
charges against
judges
which
other than
serious
two
pursue presumably
because
the Judicial Tenure Commission did
credibility.
them to
it found
lack
mystifying
Judicial Tenure Commission
It
is
on what basis the
instance, especially
the
in
in
Cameron
credible
this one
found
face of
to be
compelling exculpatory
referred
in ns 8-10 of
the
evidence
opinion,
majority
refused
and the master
which
Commission
to consider.
Also,
contradictory testimony
gave
on the
Cameron
somewhat
listening
filed
telephone
issue in the federal court action she
device
County.
against
Monroe
c majority precedes its discussion of the "tele The phone listening charge” excerpts device report concerning relationship the master’s stating Cameron, “[c]entral between Seitz and understanding transpired to an of much of what during against period charges which the re the spondent relationship is his with his secre arose added.) (Emphasis tary/court reporter.”29 repeated relationship not, The focus on their understanding” however, "central to an charges, and tends rather the reader divert quality from focus on the of the evidence claimed support charges espe- misconduct, the several telephone listening charge. cially the device
D majority runs with the hare and hunts with finding unnecessary it hounds to resolve the dispute concerning telephone testimonial tening lis- advancing device, other issues in lieu of (embroilment telephone listening charge device dispute, surreptitiously recording in a marital own ployee” knowing conversations, *44 that "his em- felony), intended to commit a to which opportunity respond Seitz did not have an be- fore the Judicial Tenure Commission and to which provide opportu- this Court does not now Seitz an nity respond, removing and in Seitz from the
29Ante, p 596. In re Seitz Levin, J. part issues,30 other bench, of these oh basis from the Judi- "recommendation” a new without Commission.31 cial Tenure
VII contempt charge specific "[a]buse is Another power.”
A overbearing in the exercise somewhat Seitz was against contempt May power, 9, 1989, on employee, Daniel Centner. court however, abuse, in the sense of not, did contempt power. judicial misconduct, the this reviewed Tenure Commission The Judicial writing episode Seitz and Costello before episodes stating May 15, 1990, that this and other complaints. filing justify the of formal not did B charge majority’s this recounts discussion of The disagreement Costello/GiLLis between concerning hearings concerning all whether majority’s Following the full text of the statement: request might Although to honor the be inclined we finding accept act testimony of an were we to additional felony, need not do so. undis- constitute a we that would puted ployee’s in his em- Seitz’ embroilment facts demonstrate recording dispute, device to use of his own marital conversations, knowledge surreptitiously employee that his record commenced what he to commit and had also intended actions, individually felony. while to be a Such believed charge, support necessarily constituting specific our conclu- judicial tempera- regarding Judge Seitz’ overall lack of sions opinion. [Ante, propriety developed in this as ment and sense p 599.] accompanying text. ns 57-58 and See *45 590 441 Mich 646 by Opinion Levin, J. youth persons center should be in the detained backdrop to discussion is a conducted. This
there May 5 Seitz’ order of the conclusion—not actually order issued the administrative subverted requir- by by Costello first ing and reconfirmed Gillis hearings conducted at the be that all such "designed” youth Parenthetically, so. it to do center —but that was power struggle this the ovеr after hearings judges the abated, held such at both issue courthouse, stating issued a formal memorandum was of the administra- that further observance voluntary. tive order was
c portions majority of the adminis- omits the by May order, of the 5 order issued trative and pertinent Seitz, to Seitz’ claim that he did that are contempt power. Set forth the not abuse the margin full text of the administrative order32 is the by Seitz;33the words em- and of the order issued 32 order forth as follows: The administrative is set 8.110, pursuant following immediately to MCR Effective handling juvenile policy utilized in the cases in shall be County. Monroe delinquency jurisdiction of In all cases within the the Monroe Division, Court, County any juvenile offender Probate Juvenile Center, County or who is detained at the Monroe Youth Program, shall not be resident of the Residential Treatment transported any hearing, excluding to the Courthouse for trial. hearings hearing in the All will be conducted room by judge assigned County Youth to the case Monroe Center by blind draw. preliminary hearings All and informal matters will continue by assigned by judge heard a referee as reñected as be speciñc being hearings, presiding judge over the case. All formal including dispositional hearings, pre-trials, show- hearings, hearings, petition and review will be conducted cause assigned by the matter as blind draw. of record for [Emphasis added.] is set follows: Seitz’ order forth as In re Levin, J. majority’s phasized recitation. in the were omitted May order, and the order The administrative language forth set the omitted read without majority’s support margin, conclusion May the administrative violated order Seitz’ language, *46 the omitted without order. Read administrative dispositional required all that
order youth hearings center, and conducted at be hearing dispositional May at 5 order set a Seitz’ County courthouse. the Monroe language from the administrative omitted The or- administrative order, states, that however juvenile applies only "any is offender who der County youth center, or a at the Monroe detained Program.” Treatment of the Residential resident Superinten- May Gentner, directed 5 order Seitz’ Center, Jane to her to release of the Youth dent custody any 9:00 a.m. time after father’s May 10, at the 2:45 hear- five hours before
over p.m. County ing courthouse. scheduled at the Monroe dispute he and other that Seitz testified without frequently probate judges released chil- Monroe dispositional youth center without dren from the hearing. father Jane to her Seitz’ order to release perfectly order, not violative of valid was a pre- having of the received the recommendations The Court County dispositional Monroe conducted at assessment being Center, that Jane be those recommendations Youth father, her now therefore: released to ordered, hereby is scheduled for this matter be and It is 10, Wednesday, May dispositional hearing 1989 at on: a 2:45 p.m. County the Monroe Court- in Courtroom #305 house. ordered, Gentner, Superintendent of the that Daniel It Center, County to her father’s shall release Jane Monroe Youth Wednesday, May custody any time after 9:00 a.m. on at 1989. ordered, any comply with failure to It is further contempt provision deemed of this Court. of this order shall be [Emphasis added.] 441 Mich Levin, J. already concluded, Seitz had order. administrative May order, he intended in the intimated as pursu- probаtion custody on from to release Jane pre- in the set forth to the recommendation ant Having dispositional that deci- made assessment. ordering justified her released sion, he was dispositional custody hear- father before to her ing. purpose was to the administrative order transporting from the courthouse to and
avoid residents to that Jane be released youth continue center who would of the directing custody. order Seitz’ detained be five hours
to her father hearing dispositional did not conflict before spirit in the administrative order retained she would be circumstance that hearing. dispositional custody after the perfectly directive clear that Seitz’ It would be viola- to her father was not that Jane be released order if Seitz had issued of the administrative tive two orders: directing on, Jane be released one *47 directing say, May father, her and another 9 to May appear May 20 for a 10 or even that she hearing, dispositional at the conditions of which impressed upon probation her. her could be
D contempt hearing does not The record support hearing a 'mock’ the claim that Seitz "conducted process.”34 Seitz was courte-
devoid of due many records ous, firm. That cannot be said but has exam- cases that this Court in countless other requesting Judicial Tenure Commis- without ined sion action. agree, should, I have allowed Gentner provided an he to be counsel when asked
consult 34Ante, p 601. In re by Levin, J. majority
opportunity that an decides to do so. The required opportunity before counsel is to consult hearing proceeds civil where with a the court contempt charged. Batchlor, 435 Mich Mead v (1990), year over a was decided 480; 460 NW2d civil to have committed was found after Gentner contempt. decided, v Sword case was Before that (1976), was Sword, 367; 249 NW2d 399 Mich expression by this Court.35 last judges or often detain husbands/fathers Circuit failing pay contempt for in civil find them to be formality support alimony than less and child instant case. the record one sees on appeared in the counsel, who Gentner obtained custody afternoon, late was released "purged of he was Seitz found that the afternoon. operation doing, contempt. but his own Not compliance [when Jane was released of the law any order]. And order that with the —if—if—if legally admissible, references order that the that is to his arrest be deleted.”
E comply had directed Gentner Costello majority apparently is of the with Seitz’ order. view judge, Costello, could reverse as chief support amply order; it that "the facts Seitz’ states upon intent Seitz was the conclusion subverting the decisions his court and the rules of disagreed judge . . . .”36 he his chief with which authority not have the
A chief does judge not viola- of another countermand an order appointed question whether counsel concerned the While Sword required indigent constitutionally who fail husbands/fathers question implications support payments, it had on the to make proceeding process a court’s in a civil to enforce constitutes due what *48 Id., p 387. order. 36Ante, p 604. 441 Mich Levin, J. order was order. Seitz’ tive of an administrative not violative as order insofar of the administrative In to her father. released that Jane be it directed arguable. question least events, was at all Costello, to communicate had no reluctance who Commission Tenure or the Judicial with scao "appeal” concerning taken his Seitz, could have justification for Costello’s There was no thereto. comply not that he should to Gentner directive order. with Seitz’ hearing contempt that, dur- stated at day,
ing (but the scao with he had communicated whom), advised this "who did not state with judges Court had abso- that other Court lutely interfering whatsoever no business assigned disposition that was of a case this Court’s to agree. I this Court.”
F any other occasion that on It is not claimed order. the administrative Seitz violated urgently noteworthy again that before Hall It is requested, Ten- Judicial on December investigate Seitz, the commission Commission ure complaints concern- formal not to file had decided against including charges charges, ing number of respecting con- the Gentner and Costello episode, tempt of "further a recurrence absent "repetition episodes of such this nature” or a Hall, letter conduct,” her effect, 11, said, there had December episodes of this na- of further a recurrence been repetition The commis- of such conduct. ture or a explained it on which later the basis has not sion mat- in the Gentner that Seitz’ conduct concluded In re sanction.” See "the severest ter deserves Hague, 532, 554-555; 315 NW2d 412 Mich (1982). *49 In re Opinion by Levin, J. days sixty
Judge Hague suspended was for for courts, by superior valid orders entered disobeying courts, refusing higher to follow decisions of abus- ing contempt powers, improperly excluding his courtroom, practicing from in his attorneys prosecutors in a war with local led engaging him to the limits of his ignore judicial authority his office. obligations imposed upon and the VIII remaining specific charge neglect The is "wilful adoption respond docket and refusal to re- quests by scao.” misconduct, charge distinguished
The as only misspeech private, personal relationship, from in a substance, that has relates to Seitz’ failure "cooperate” moving adoption with Leonard requests and to from the scao. respond docket left employ When Cameron Monroe Irene County February Probate Court Leonard, another court took over Cam- employee, adoption eron’s task of cases for hear- preparing ing.37 adoption investigator
Leonard had been the for or judges, training experience both but had no files She preparing hearings. adop- for studied code, files, provided tion reviewed old but was no assistance.
A secretary/recorder, When Cameron was Seitz’ adoption there were no with the docket. problems "[a]nd, parenthetically, appears typical it to be master added doing when he found that Mrs. Leonard was Costello that respondent, County this for he directed Mr. Pace Probate [Monroe Court to order Mrs. Leonard to do the same work for him.” Director] 441 Mich Levin, J. February between problem there any was Nor 1990. May, returned that when Seitz testified
Leonard her, made himself vacation, he avoided April an inaccessible, re- to her respond not and would majority dates. The hearing that he set quests explanation Leonard’s adopted to have appears at up stood she retaliating because that Seitz this said The master wedding.38 Cameron’s explanation Seitz’ not substantiated.39 claim was compe- that she was Leonard was avoiding *50 tent. judge, was chief 1987, Seitz when September,
In administrative of command” a "chain he issued from communicat- judges prohibited order their concerning personnel with court ing directly com- that all such required performance job Pace, director the court be sent munications administrator). after Costello (court Subsequently, 1989, he reaffirmed chief became order. chain of command of com- of the chain reason Seitz said that had to tell Leonard what he could not mand order said that it. The master how to do done or be noted "it should be to Seitz fairness that Seitz complaints” frequent made had Costello By order. of command the chain had violated under the strictures May Seitz to avoid injunction Tenure Commission’s Judicial repeti- "any nature” of this episodes "further action. or face formal conduct” tion of such B memo to 29, 1990, transmitted Seitz June On with the problems had that Leonard stating Pace 38Ante, p 612.
39See n 48. In re Seitz Opinion by Levin, J. adoption hearing job training and lacked for it. qualified Pace testified that he was not to train Leonard. expressed reported directly Levitt, who compe- Hall, his view that was not Leonard September, expressed Greg
tent.40 In Ul- Regional rich, an assistant State Court Adminis- trator, his dissatisfaction with Leonard’s work. "Incredibly, then,
The master said: no one met seeing responsibility that Mrs. Leonard was (Em- performed correctly.” trained or her duties added.) phasis By 9, 1990, letter dated November addressed to expressed length Hall, Seitz at some the view that adoption Leonard’s work in A cases was deficient. copy Appendix of letter attached as a. respond
Hall did to Seitz’ letter. Nor did she concerning make a determination petence. Leonard’s com- appears, rather, It she acted reli- Ulrich, who, Pace, ance on Levitt and like dis- knowledge adoption procedures claimed expertise, merely
and who forwarded Leonard’s ready. views of when cases were c *51 animosity” The master found that "considerable developed between Seitz and Leonard. While it "may” part have stemmed in from Leonard’s rela- tionship part "may” Cameron, with it have stemmed in hearing. May 4, 1990,
from a One two putative fathers had not been served with a notice hearing, perhaps attempted. and none had been Seitz claimed that Leonard lied oath under when point The master said that Levitt met with Seitz at some pending adoption "obviously triggered by discuss complaints.” cases Mrs. Leonard’s preparing Seitz advised Levitt that Leonard was not files properly. 441 Mich Levin, J. served. The the father had been
she said that "Rightly wrongly, it is or clear master said: patience [Seitz] had no further thereafter generally her.” and avoided Mrs. Leonard
D Seitz did not The continued while master request hearing respond dates, to set to Leonard’s "[a]doption grind complete proceedings to a did not July, 1990, on vacation halt.” Before left gave hearings for in a he Leonard dates number began keeping office files in his to which cases. He hearing dates and had no access. Seitz set Leonard signed of which Leonard had no orders cases knowledge. reason, that, "[f]or found whatever master grudge respon- against the
Mrs. Leonard carried a dent,” Thrоugh complained Pace, or to Pace. initiative, her the ear of on Region Leonard obtained own Administrator I Court Levitt.
E Levitt Ulrich came to on June 19 to Monroe problems. discuss Leonard asked Pace to other arrange presented her to meet with She Levitt. being adoption felt were a list cases "she neglected” by Seitz. her com- Levitt forwarded plaints forwarded, to Hall. The list was said consulting seeking master, or without "input” or "views.” stating July 12, 1990, Hall wrote Seitz
On "[a]doption past routinely in the files that were disposed expeditiously your of in courtroom according experiencing delay reports are now *52 In re Seitz 655 Levin, J. reaching this office.” Five cases were listed. The may objectionable letter continued that "[w]hat be you apparently is that [one refuse discuss give cases] five employee or direction to a veteran court attempted who has several times to dis- you.”41 cuss this with Seitz’ "earliest attention” sought expressed cases, to the five and Hall weekly prog- the ’’wish” to be notified as to what dispositions ress and Seitz had made. telephoned weekly
Hall testified that she during summer, and that Seitz did not return her calls. Seitz testified that he did not learn of any the calls and that there was no record of messages from Hall.42The master found that Seitz did not return Hall’s calls. He did not find that any message Seitz had received that Hall had called. ignored
The master found that Seitz the letter July from Hall dated 12. He said that Seitz’ reac- tion "while excusable, is understandable. The listening employee Administrator was to an incompetent paying he considered to be but was no aggrieved.” attention to him. He felt Levitt and Ulrich continued to monitor events in County August the Monroe Probate Court. On stating 1990, Levitt sent a memo to Hall may investigator, Leonard have been a veteran but was not a preparing hearing. veteran at files for home, Seitz testified that he received no calls at and that his private rang only line in his office and not on the bench. secretary only Seitz had a intermittently. in his office trial, particularize At the Hall was not asked to whether she called private public office, Seitz on through line or line in his or switchboard, may court’s central or with whom she left have mes- sages appears may for Seitz. It that Hall have tried to reach him Pace, through so, responded that when she did he was not available. Pace was not asked whether he had received calls Seitz, and, so, given from Hall any if whether he had message. 441 Mich Opinion by Levin, J. satisfactory progress
"Judge aon Seitz had made *53 you to attention.”43 cases earlier called list of
IX September com- 12, the tenure Hall wrote On investigation requesting con- of Seitz’ an mission The said duct. letter that Seitz had installed
—Cameron claimed jury eavesdropping a device in an electronic chambers; in room his January file, in failed to —Seitz had May, reports as re- 1990, of undecided cases quired 8.107; MCR report of to on the status —Seitz had failed adoption weekly; cases delay disposition of in the
—There had been adoption docket. Seitz’ jury not was of room Electronic surveillance charged complaint filed the Judi- in the formal cial Tenure Commission. report cases in Novem-
Seitz filed a undecided ber, 1990. delays adoption to docket referred Seitz’ July appear have been to
in Hall’s letter resolved ure commission by August the ten- Hall wrote before September had, 12. in- Hall
on complaints Leonard, deed, further received not, however, sub- had been the merits of which any hope things improving The master there was said "[i]f probably [Seitz], dashed Mrs. it Leonard between hearing” appeared August Seitz had at a 3rd when no one request. had relied on the assurance at Leonard’s Leonard scheduled voluntarily, petitioners parties appear would that all the of one of innocuous, give anyone viewed that as notice. The master and did Seitz viewed it as "inexcusable.” but In re Opinion by Levin, J. person qualified jected scrutiny by an make assessment.
x nothing The master said that eventful occurred adoption during period cases two-month August 31 31. between and October Leonard con- complain provided however, tinued, Hall, opinion, that, a list of cases neglected. her had been A By provided 31, 1990, letter dated Hall October Seitz with list seventeen cases and asked that *54 by he advise her November 9 at the latest the why they dates these cases would be heard or hearing could not be scheduled for or other action. responded by unsigned Seitz letter dated (Appendix a), 9 November until directly which was not received respond 14. November The letter did not request hearing to Hall’s that he set dates. length stating why Seitz wrote at he was not responsible any delay. for He said that the solu- longer authority tion was no under his or control. formerly hearing gener- He said dates were ally days, set within fourteen and claimed con- hearings proceed tested faster on his docket than probate judges. on the dockets most other any delay Seitz attributed to his concern that fully properly prepared the case be litigants appear and when hearing persons date;
on a who take off time from work to come to his courtroom hearing for a should not have to return another day necessary paperwork all the because had not completed been because of the "laziness and/or ineptitude employee.” of a Court Mich Levin, J. left, everything Cameron that before said left, cases After Cameron expeditiously.
moved completed not be Leonard could prepared prop- been had not they hearing date because Pace advised repeatedly had prepared. erly know what did not that Leonard his assistant and doing. she
Seitz concluded: adoption files to pending returning all the I’m suggest Administrator I would Court the that he review [Pace]. cases, make sure each of case, complete ready file is in each Supervisor had com- Adoption hearing, the the spoken to all investigation and proper pleted a involved, advised that she has parties parties at the have have they have to will of what information proper notices hearing, and that addresses). (at right parties given to the been him that this I receive a certiñcation When fourteen done, be set within the case will
has been [Emphasis days. added.] B hours af- than thirty-six less November On Ul- response, Seitz’ November Hall received ter set an Monroe and return to directed to rich was Seitz, city. out of who was docket for adoption and concluded calendar Seitz’ secretary A checked pro- Leonard оpen an date. 8 was January was faxed list of files which with a vided Ulrich *55 who, that Ferry John Administrator Court Deputy receipt of hours of the scao’s thirty-six within day, 9, wrote Seitz schedul- dated November the letter 8, referring hearing January on for ing nine cases Seitz, no directing that a referee and cases to two 3, decide motions should than December later with in seven cases an order sign or conñrmation In re Seitz by Levin, J. Ferry numbers, said did not nine docket require which hearing.44 a open all were re-
The master found that files by Pace viewed on November 16 Ulrich and disclaimed, however, Pace and Ulrich Leonard. procedures expertise. any knowledge of the or knowledge exper- Similarly, Ferry disclaimed or apparent largely It all three acted tise. the advice of Leonard.45
c Seitz did not enter the orders December 3. Ferry’s arrived, When November 16 letter attending judicial inwas Florida seminar. He Friday, day 23, returned to work November Thanksgiving. This left the week of after 26, itself, or November December six seven days. business Carr, Seitz met with James
On December professor, friend and former law who then was a Magistrate in the United States District Court Toledo. Carr testified that he advised Seitz that he though should treat the communications "as some- body get you.” is out to responded,
Clearly, Seitz should have at least telephone, by immediately upon 3 or December receipt requesting Ferry’s follow-up letter of December concerning
information the status the seven cases. failing
Seitz was no doubt at fault to be more responsive Hall to communications and to reach an failing Ferry, way and in to find a satisfactory accommodation to them.
Seitz could and should have scheduled a number 44Leonard, summer, hearings during requested had be set in some of these cases. secretary. point they At one consulted with Costello’s *56 441 Mich Levin, J. by Opinion hearing. undertaken Hall should have
of cases for an attempted competence, concerning inquiry and Leonard’s satisfactory ar- alternative make inquiry. rangements during pendency of the and a to a careful evaluation was entitled response repeated complaints about to his written performance his letter work and to Leonard’s dated response. provided such a November 9. He never was scope Seitz, also to In fairness Hall and authority responsibility order under the Hall’s appointing Special
her Court Administrator County Probate Court was far the Monroe clear. This Court’s erately appointing delib-
order her was vague regard.46 in that by the It has not or determined been claimed master, Commission, the Judicial Tenure scao, complaints Court, Leon- about or this Seitz’ performance lack- were unfounded and ard’s work ing person familiar in merit. or other No day-to-day probate of a court work concerning adoption testify cases was called performance. Yet, work either Leonard’s or Seitz’ Seitz is removed from part, office, at least possibly largely, discourtesy to of his Hall because deputy Ferry, defiance in and her claimed responsive failing to be more communications concerning Ferry Hall and and directives from 9, 1989, June This Court entered an administrative order on reading as follows: judicial To and efficient administration of insure effective Court, ap- County Probate the Court
business in Monroe Marilyn Special points as State Court Administrator K. Hall Court, County until Administrator further order. the Monroe Probate Administrator, Special As is the admin- Ms Hall istrative director of that court. report The State Court Administrator is directed to submit County regarding the condition of the Monroe to the Court 1,1989. Probate Court December In re Levin, J. directives cases —communications adoption expressed concerns ignored repeatedly which performance. Leonard’s work about
XI *57 follow-up letter of Ferry’s Seven after days 11, 4, Hall filed with the on December December six-page request Tenure Commission a Judicial acknowledged Seitz. She that his investigation of cases, undecided due report concerning MCR 8.107 had been filed September, 26.47 November letter copies
Hall of Seitz’ attached 16, add- 9 and her letter of November November received no word date we have ing that "[t]o group this of cases.” regarding in the United had filed an action Cameron 21, 1990, and Court on November States District copies the news media and Hall provided had tape. memo and cassette graphic personal of the and also attached a quoted copy Hall therefrom in the Detroit News on appeared an article that 21. November complaint of the filed copy
Hall also enclosed Cameron claimed that Seitz Cameron which by boat, out with him on his go had invited her to California, her run him to travel with son off with vacationing the same time he was to Florida at told Cameron’s sister family, there with his mistake and that he making big Cameron was Cameron, husband, if Larry kill Cameron’s would hurt he Cameron. that Seitz had since alleged also complaint Cameron, employee, a court Larry
barred
recognize his recommen-
and refused to
courtroom
January
May
reports for
were never filed.
She added that the
Hall said that Seitz cooperate his be- matters and on administrative ability seriously erode the to continues havior effectively, efficiently, operate the court fairly.” opinion expressed if were
Hall "cooperate in administrative to fail continue rights "negatively affect matters,” that would parties . . . .” In court before the who come it situation,” Hall said that "correct the order to "imperative Tenure Commis- that the Judicial original) possi- (emphasis swiftly as sion act as appro- investigate fully matter and take this ble added.) (Emphasis priate action.” being made at the were It is clear that decisions against system highest judicial to move level *58 "cooper- part he did not Seitz, because at least this, events sensed Leonard. Seitz ate” with impression. to bear out were
A was dis- tenure commission letter to the The master said: The boycotted charges respondent Paragraph in effect because he her work without cause Mrs. Leonard and criticized wedding of maid of honor at the that she had been discovered Cameron, employees youth home and that he banished Mrs. from his court doing Larry intake and barred Cameron conducting a vendеtta cases because he was work on his charges secretary against and her new husband. his former by any conjecture plausible . . but not substantiated . are [Emphasis added.] evidence. In re Levin, J. following day, Tuesday, patched 11. The December pretrial 12, held conferences December two to be dismissed delinquency juvenile matters. The cases were prosecuting attorney but, to collecting restitution, Seitz efforts at facilitate listed the cases for trial January 8:30 8 at a.m., adoption docket was to commence at before 9:00 a.m. or Pace
The master said that either Leonard scheduled for of the additional cases learned respon- consulting January 8, "and, without leaped to the conclusion that this [Seitz], dent going ignore respondent was meant adoption for Jan. 8th. This belief cases scheduled obviously Court [State communicated to was copy for, 13, Office] on Dec. Administrative respondent’s Jan. 8th docket was faxed from Pace’s officeto the scao.” testified that when she learned additional
Hall January 8, were scheduled for she became cases pursuant "upset.” day, 14, The next December assigning instructions, an order was entered Hall’s Probate County Kirkendall Washtenaw County Probate Court to "assist be a Monroe with adoption docket” in nineteen cases identified assignment. previously Hall had the order arranged Judge Kirkendall to be available. The assignment "delay due to stated reason for paperwork.” and Ulrich were Also on December Levitt dispatched pick up the files in the to Monroe to adoption Seitz told Levitt and Ulrich that cases. attorney’s office, the files were not at his but at his actually in Seitz’ office. Seitz office. The files were photocopies that he wished to make before testified turning over to the State Court Administra- them *59 to Ulrich until tor. The files were not turned over Monday, 17. December 441 Mich Levin, J.
B pick to in Monroe Ulrich were Levitt and When up 14, advised them the files on December the cases on take care of be able to that he would They, January nevertheless, that insisted 8. to them. files be turned over acknowledged when, that Ulrich January the date for 16, 8 as he set November secretary hearing that cases, he told Seitz’ those day. for matters could be scheduled other January arrived, heard the two When delinquency was avail- 9:00 He matters before a.m. adoption cases heard and could have able that date. scheduled for handling of the that "the scao
The master found Judge assignment the Jan. Kirkendall for something hearings desired,” to be leaves to establish a refusal the record "does not ”49 added.) (Emphasis Jan. 8th. handle the cases on 49The master found: transpired, though following nec- Dec. 14 the events On essarily listed: in the order (1) sending approved to outside Administrator Hall a[n] standby basis; thought adoption her cases on a
hear that would be would cases, assignment respondent hear the if was there to cancelled; or, respondent he if made it clear that cases, assignment. hear the she would cancel was, (2) County or Kirkendall of Washtenaw John been, possible assignment already to serve on for had contacted 8th. Jan. (3) Perry Monroe to check on the Levitt and Ulrich to sent up They pick January the Jan. 8th casеs the files of were instructed 8th cases. delivery Judge Kirkendall. (4) already decision had been understood that Ulrich cases; assign Judge Kirkendall to hear [sic] made to they longer respondent’s cases to hear. were no (5) apparent scheduling Initially, did not discuss Levitt that, Ferry reported by phone respondent. He conflict staff, juvenile appeared talking that one of the cases it Ferry length testified that he of time. could take a substantial instructed respondent apparent on the Levitt to check with *60 In re Levin, J. XII failed to master found that Seitz had While the length [adoption] cases,” of the the the "move particular delay cases in cases is unclear. The generally months filed than six had been less before. concluded, the basis of claimed on
Seitz had by Leonard, that he could not errors omissions conflict, say respondent that said and that Levitt called back to (sic, handling adop- problem the there no with that tion there would would be cases). respondent that indicated Ulrich confirmed that ("he juvenile problem the matters would no said be scheduling long”), that take but said he took juvenile by respondent that he did not as an indication cases. cases adoption that to Ulrich also conceded intend when hear the respondent’s secretary, adoption cases he he set the day. that her matters could be scheduled told that other (6) sought to obtain the files for the When and Ulrich Levitt hearings, they adoption respondent them were 8th told Jan. attorneys’ could at his he obtained not available but were on office; Monday, respondent’s in in fact the 17th. The files were paranoid he had about the scao he that become testified changes keeping copy that that he the files to so no and could be made was in them. (7) Despite respondent’s that to Levitt there would statement cases, Ferry problem” adoption "no with the decided be part respon- assign Judge anyway, in because of Kirkendall attorney the files. dent’s that his had statement (8) assignment The made formal Administrator the listed Jan. 8. Kirkendall to hear cases on The master also said: scheduling juvenile for the time of two matters same apparent disregard adoption may in have seemed to be hearings day, had no which the scao set for same but
inquiry respondent he was made of as to whether intended in the scao hearings, nothing January there was handle letter Nov. required response respondent on 16 which point, would be no and his statement that there fact disregarded. scao, on was Had the from all of conñict the to visiting record, that date respondents move failures to the cases circumstances letters, assignment respond simply made an of a to scao justified. certainly judge, this would have been On respondent it had theretofore failed is clear handling perform judicial those cases. duties 441 Mich Opinion by Levin, J. rely prepare with care. Seitz her to the files hearing unwilling unless some- to set cases for was competent so, court, to do one in the who was hearing. the files were order certified He had so advised Hall, Levitt, Pace, and Ulrich. appears further that Leonard was not trained It provide or scao and no effort was made Pace requisite training. And, direct- before her with ing regarding рerformance office, of his Leonard no was made to determine whether effort performing correctly. her duties None of persons direction, the files at Hall’s *61 who examined knowledge proce- Ferry, Levitt, Ulrich, or had of expertise. was, nevertheless, Seitz di- dures or rected, the on the basis of Leonard’s advice that order, orders, motions, in to decide files were enter hearing. cases for set Noteworthy in this is that the master connection grudge against” found that "Leonard carried a charge the Seitz. The master also found "criticized her work without cause” was "not Seitz substantiated added.) (Emphasis by any evidence.” major- The Judicial Tenure Commission and the ity "cooper- Seitz failed to find misconduct because employee,” ate” and work with a "veteran al- though, put it, as the master "no one met the responsibility seeing that Mrs. Leonard was performed correctly.” trained or her duties
A hearing January 8, to the for on I As cases set repeat that the master found that the record "does not establish a refusal to handle the cases on Jan. 8th.”
B Turning Ferry the Seitz cases that directed to by decide order on or before December one had In re by Levin, J. hearing already decided, had and a been been August.50 left This five in in another scheduled adoptions that Seitz confirmation motions for Ferry order without a decide was directed hearing 3. December or before might possibly remiss have been
While setting motions for of the five one or more not confirmation December—but opinion gave hearing October
for sometime express qualified an such no one justified clearly evidence —Seitz acting refraining confirma- on motions for in tion without a hearing, might, following hearing. such He delaying justified con- even have been beyond adoption 3 or December well firmation good-faith depending January 8, on his assessment of the child. interests” "best provides year after the that one The statute rights, terminating parental entry of an order adoption may and that enter an order court upon confirmation) (a "the court motion for motion period may one-year is in if waiver waive” adoptee, or extend interests of best one-year period.51 explain, majority nor not has does commission, Seitz can be
tenure on what basis having disciplined on or entered orders adoptions *62 confirming when, 3 before December required judi- statute, to make a under the cial determination he is child of the best interests delaying might justified have in confir- been six or an addi- mation for an additional tional months year.
c wilfully accordingly, agree not, I do neglected adoption was some cases. There unclear,
50
time is
this matter at the
The status of
27.3178(555.56).
710.56; MSA
MCL
xm expres- majority "As we examine the The states: conjures up speciñc impres- Judge Seitz, it sions of hostility, belligerence, vindictiveness, bit- sions perver- disrespectfulness, terness, sity and considerable reso-. of will and motive. These characteristics discordantly compared with the Code оf nate when added.) (Emphasis . . . .”53 But Judicial Conduct properly office Seitz cannot be removed from be- up specific "expressions” "conjure cause of impressions,” unpleas- he is as or because viewed impressions conjured-up of un- ant. Unless pleasant personal manifest them- characteristics public, in in the courtroom or in selves misconduct discipline may properly imposed. be A only instance of misconduct claimed to have person constituted of a in or out of court abuse charge contempt was the that Seitz abused During power respect argu- to Centner.54 oral lawyer ment, the for the Judicial Tenure Commis- acknowledged sion that there was no evidence that directly any Seitz’ "attitude” was reflected that, files, appear apparently It does on review of the in retro spect, orders could have been entered some of the cases and hearings could have been scheduled because the cases were indeed free, were, problem problems, they manageable. or the such as 53Ante, p 626. part vii. See *63 669 In re Opinion Levin, J. him, and that Gentner before the court cases charged only contempt incident was the case an abuse of claimed that there where it was authority. judicial abused, in found have not
Seitz was otherwise litigant, lawyer any or court, other court or out of person. B adoption delays less consist of in the docket delay length has than ten cases. The quantified, clearly less than two but it been files. Nor did evaluate the months. Hall did not Ferry. did Levitt. Nor did Ulrich. Nor did Nor Pace. any delayed other
It is not claimed that incompe- part docket, in estate or mental of his tency cases, or otherwise.
c private, in idiom was lurid While Seitz’ insignificance compar- pales conduct almost into judges have, in a to the conduct of who ison lawyers litigants cases, number of abused neglected, period courtroom, over an extended years dockets, who of time —sometimes —their merely privately cen- have admonished or been (see Appendix b) occasions, or, on a few sured suspensions subjected especially egregious cases, year or more. Bennett, 178; Mich 267 NW2d In In re (1978), suspended from office this Court findings year pay he know- without one superin- wilfully ingly an violated order visiting tending judges were make control indigency appointments of determinations 441 Mich Levin, J. court, that in the district in criminal cases counsel *64 employed variety regularly common ob- he dealing expressions profane in with and scenities conducting persons and while on the bench various participated improperly in business, that he court the seeking political campaign partisan candidate of a Representa- to the state House of election engaged mudslinging, that he unilat- tives summarily erally with terminated a contract providing public services to law firm defender a indigent defendants, and that he entered criminal County Register after hours of Deeds office through authorization, his au- exertion of without thority judge. as a
D saying I to be understood as do wish prece- by the Judicial Tenure Commission is bound discipline of the recommended and dents levels imposed past. in the But there is no evidence that has decided to the Judicial Tenure Commission discipline generally. the level of increase The recommendations of the Judicial Tenure in the instant case are not evidence Commission that it has raised the level of its recommendation generally findings of miscon- because one finding felony, duct is the that Seitz committed a finding majority adopt. that the does not
E
Judges
generally
from office
have
been removed
Michigan only for
criminal conduct.55The disci-
55
Jenkins,
(1991);
In
15;
In re Leon
re
437 Mich
F
discipline
recommended
It manifest from
Appendix b
cases—see
other
the commission
past
judging
—that,
recommenda-
at least
not,
could
consistent
tions, the commission
past
recommendations,
recommended re-
have
it found Seitz had
offenses
moval
(1975);
637;
Ryman,
178
In re
394 Mich
232 NW2d
(1972).
But
In re
see
Heideman,
630;
Mich
The constitution that this Court powered impose discipline on the "recommenda- tion” of the Judicial Tenure Commission.57 This impose discipline greater Court has declined to than that recommended the commission in majority opinion cases where a greater discipline imposed.58 should be discipline imposed recommended and is so disproportionate compared to the misconduct —ab- finding, adopted by Court, sent a this that Seitz felony committed a or aided and abetted the com- felony mission of a the cause should be —that remanded to the Judicial Tenure Commission discipline assump- new recommendation of on the felony. tion Seitz did not commit a A APPENDIX 9, November Marilyn Ms. K. Hall
State Court Administrator P.O. Box 30048
Lansing, MI 48909
Dear Ms. Hall: response your letter,
In first October I’d Legisla- indicate that I’m well aware of the *66 n 1. See majority private of this Court has refused to enter censures majority opinion in cases where the was of the that the recommended discipline inadequate, was and has remanded such cases to the Judicial Tenure Commission for reconsideration. The tenure commis has, instances, generally sion mended in those refused to increase the recom discipline generally by and no further action has been taken discipline, censure, private this Court with the result that no even imposed. was In re Levin, J. adoption setting priority for high in intent
ture’s cases; on parental rights I’ve been and cases Probate have this years and watched bench for evolve. legislation express my you
I the confidence appreciate your you that know ability evidenced statement quickly. this matter that I can resolve However, problems delays for the and reasons something I did not adoption cases is these longer create, no and the solution is or cause under my authority or control. problem by following attempts to resolve the My (an proper chain of command and the established recall, prominent issue, very and you’ll at our arguing and discussion topic much futile, I as will meetings) have been numerous explain later. scheduling my or delays are not because
The the your im- management my as letter docket almost usu- plies. Hearing on all cases are dates days from the date I ally set within fourteen except such in certain matters as receive case contests, attorneys will need where trials pre- complete discovery to and other time more trial hearings, trials, contested procedures. You’ll find proceed my faster on and other cases through- judges’ than on most other dockets docket out the state that). (although I hear never about entitled, assigned to are People who have cases me least, can expect the Court and very at the date time sched- hear their case and will aren’t) (and have They going to shouldn’t uled. come hearing and be told my courtroom for a prepared properly due to their case wasn’t that the ineptitude of a Court em- laziness and/or they’ll just have to come back and that ployee, gets right. it day employee when the another to come people take time off work Many of these Court, apprehensive most are anxious procedure. I’m not about to increase about by adding anxiety apprehension more *67 441 Mich by Opinion Levin, J. making keep them by frustration to their situation returning erly prepared. prop- because their case wasn’t to Court stating You’re correct there has been a adoption change processing in the dramatic cases, although it dates back farther than the six Actually, it you your months dates back mention letter. shortly my secretary after left. My secretary cases prepare adoption used to all the me; assigned parties the she talked with involved, pared them, pre- explained procedure the proper and insured the notices were given, hearing ready made sure that the case was provisions Adoption and that all the of the with, complied Code had been and then scheduled my (usually days). the case on docket within actually Much of the work that she did was responsibility Leonard. Adoption Supervisor, Irene left, it my secretary quickly apparent Once became Adoption Supervisor knowledge that the had little legal procedure required in these cases. hearing Cases were set for hearing, hearing and at the time of the the (when if parties appeared) completed could not be because the case prepared. properly repeatedly wasn’t Monroe lem, I advised the prob- Court Probate Administrator of the absence, and on occasion of his advised the problem specifi- Assistant Administrator of the — cally, that Mrs. Leonard doesn’t know what she’s doing. experienced hearings I’ve occasions where have set,
been exactly case was called at the time set, nobody up. and date shows Examination anyone, of the file shows no notice to no —and investigation. talked with the tact. Adoption Supervisor hasn’t parties supposed she was to con- I I nobody up, recall one instance where showed were, inquired parties as to where and was In re Levin, J. "Well, Supervisor I was told Adoption told the did, one as up.” they No people would show hearing taking probably had no idea the Adoption Supervisor relied place, since the notify of the hear- party to the other side adverse ing. usually doesn’t That work. *68 instances, received haven’t been In notices other (the result correct the addresses weren’t because carelessness, given wrong being information not Court.) instance, parental whose In rights father another terminated did not being permanently were hearing. I asked Mrs. at termination appear Leonard replied with notice. She if he had been served had I the file—he not. that he had. checked hearing stopped, people sent was The home. prob- particularly of the illustrative This case lem. It took me two telephone calls —a total one minute, exactly where the 40 seconds —to find out get him served. It wasn’t as father was and how was in dodging can’t. He if he was service —he prison, years. had been for two Jackson might ap- Initially, particular situation Oakland, maybe Wayne, or pear unusual. And county it wouldn’t be because Macomb they and their volume people deal with number of cases.
However, county. The father I this is a small one more notorious and described above was long of our term, our Court before he repeat visitors to long got term [system], into the adult and was a He also of our Youth Center. was resident probation long present job, for a time. Prior her at adoption supervisor employed our for Youth Center and then as a Probation Officer the Court. I person, only
To
this
had to ask another
locate
(the
Officer,
phone
make
calls
two brief
Probation
officer),
I was able to
probation
was to the
first
him in
than
minutes.
locate
less
two
release of no idea what to she needed to check to see if releases had been information. Mrs. Leonard do; totally she was unaware that given filed The Administrator talked with her about Court should have to do this —not me.” so the information could be out. advised me that when he this, reply her was "The left, my secretary After santly asking cases, advised her of some basic Mrs. Leonard was inces- adoption what she should do initially even the most routine matters. I procedures, but when continued, I County this advised the Monroe Pro- apparent bate Court Administrator that it was she doing, didn’t know what she was and that she was constantly running to going me instead of to her *69 (Which supervisor. agreed upon exactly was what we had all command). proper as the chain of (I problem any occasionally advising don’t have procedural Court staff member about issues on an case, you’ll unusual criticism at our but recall I came under severe meetings perceived when it was allowing that I employees to skirt the chain command). Administrator, Pace, repeatedly I the incessant dled doesn’t bother told the Mr. problem, finally, and stopped Mrs. Leonard the inquiries. I asked Mr. Pace how he han- it, replied and he "I took care of it—she you anymore, does she?” Perhaps, nel Region utilizing addition to Mr. fun- Pace to complaints my adoption about cases to the office, you might I scao want to ascertain just exactly from him what he did to "take care” problem. knowing my- I’d be interested in self. In re Levin, J. these that when also be made aware You problems should continued, I the wrote Mrs. Leonard with (on 29th), June Administrator a memorandum training had do this asking specific she to what position. the I for an evaluation
job. also asked reply my re- I never received written have Mr. verbally Pace quests, but I was advised everybody "when position be would evaluated was,” specific training, his as to the else’s reply ing.” and degree in cook- guess got she’s some "Iwas have More events occurred. serious fairly by an who is I was prominent individual contacted adoption about an community in the adoptive mother He stated that confirmation. with) (who day came in one periodically he works upset distraught. had been unable very get and She pending regarding her child’s information Leonard, stopped had adoption Mrs. a day that the be set on when my officeto ask case adoptive present. could father be given if also she were several She stated notice, when her husband she could know weeks I she present. could be was on bench when speak at the stopped, didn’t to her time. her, speak I told Before had a chance the she Adoption Supervisor stopped had that she me, purpose visit. see and the of her point, to me at reported It was severely Adoption Supervisor told her that she had adoption being chances con- diminished the firmed, essentially, went and you "If bothered off, pissed you’ll him Judge this and about get reportedly the kid.” She attrib- probably never fact that "The is mean and uted this to the vindictive.” given by her
The mother was
that
knew me and
assurances
co-worker
*70
true,
he
and he advised her that
this wasn’t
dirеctly.
suggested that she call me
She did.
After a brief previous adoption problems with a she had had only trying judge, and that she was another (the adoptive fa- that her husband to make sure ther) , hearing. could be there for hearing at a I never set a explained I that would adoptive parents couldn’t be time when both she had present, apologized for the difficulties employee, and we were able encountered with our hearing days six or seven later. For to set a worth, got you I letter it’s a thank whatever shortly afterward. hap- of what
I advised the Court Administrator pened, essentially avoided the issue. he reports that Mrs. Leonard has I’ve also received temporary secretary my office asked the (she adoptions adoption advice on knows less about Leonard). Mrs. procedure than does repeatedly I’ve advised Court Administrator problems with Mrs. Leonard’s lack of about procedural knowledge. She is an emotional individ- grievances complaints ual who files or when the job her to do her and the Administrator has asked responsibility. work which is her complaints heard numerous from her co- I’ve also spends much of time in her workers that she her (a knitting reading office or the Bible fact that I’ve personally dropped by when I’ve her observed unexpectedly). office reading
I’m not to criticize someone for about Bible, help I do think it would alleviate the but problem intersperse scripture if her she were reading passages Adoption with a few from the [Adoption] Supervi- employ Code. We do her as the sor, spiritual not our leader. properly prepared, have not been informa-
Cases *71 In re Opinion Levin, J. sent to complete, notices are files is not tion in the all, addresses, parties are if and wrong at informa- what procedure and about the not briefed hearing. bring they’ll have to tion expect a asking much to too believe its I don’t of basic semblance to have some employee court knowledge of the court working competence and parcel job. of her part and which is procedures to the adoption files pending returning all the I’m that he re- suggest I would Administrator. Court in each cases, and make sure view each hearing, case, complete ready for and the file completed proper Supervisor had Adoption parties in- spoken to all investigation and parties of what volved, has advised that she hearing, at the have to have they will information given to the been proper notices have that the addresses). (at right parties this him that I receive a certification When four- done, set within the cases will be has been days. teen a minute take
Also, you it if could appreciate I’d get our Mario to Levitt to direct ask Herb advise- Repeated requests computer fixed. futile, and I have to to his office have been ments equip- my personal correspondence on type my skills, this Considering my typing ment at home. of time. a substantial amount takes you. Thank
Very truly yours, McCauley Seitz James Probate Herb Levitt cc: 441 Mich Levin, J. B
APPENDIX
DISCIPLINE FROM
PARTIAL HISTORY OF
REPORTS:
COMMISSION
JUDICIAL TENURE
(1982). A
Hague,
(1984).
Judge
publicly cen
A District Court
was
abusing
judicial
by displaying
office
sured for
favoritism and
permitting
relationships
family
judgment.[59] [Emphasis
inñuence his
added.]
(1985).
Sobotka,
dent
mission and consented to its recommendation.
adopted in full the Commis-
Supreme
The
Court
censure,
and ordered her
sion’s recommendation
and
months
followed
suspension
for two
to be
supervision by the Commission.
six months
[Em-
phasis added.]
(1986). A
Bayles,
In re
Court
tax return
ñle a state income
timely
or refusal
1984,
timely file a
through
or to
1979
years
for the
through
1976
city tax return
years
for the
12 misdemeanor warrants
for
the fact that
and for
issued
evasion had been
tax fraud and
income
сity
tax
to file
against him due to
failure
[Emphasis
returns.
added.]
(1988).
Merritt,
Mich 1211
In the Matter of
431
publicly
censured
for
Judge
was
court
A district
attorneys
from
using fines collected
improperly
late
ap-
filings, tardy
appearances
and failure
augment a
fund
charitable
order
pear,
appearing
indigent drug and alcohol abusers
assist
gave the
Judge
him. The conduct of
before
judicial office to solicit
that he used his
appearance
[Emphasis
attorneys.
monies
added.]
(1989). A
Templin,
In re
In re 433 Mich Judge guilty found of miscon- was District Court duct as a to act practicing attorney by his failure neglecting legal mat- diligently promptly, him, deposit failure to client entrusted to ters commingling and trust account and funds in a misappropriating client funds. to the recommendation of consented the -Su- adopted by the Commission which public censure. in its preme Court order [Em- phasis added.] Griffin, [Mich, 1987]; 448 In re 400 NW2d [Mich, 1989]; [Mich, NW2d
NW2d *74 In re Seitz by Opinion Levin, J. charged A District Court with 1990]. improper litigants directed at courtroom conduct gross contempt au- lawyers and abuse Complaint, thority. In his Answer to the he did allegations and claimed his behav- not contest an disorder for which ior resulted from emotional being Following his interim sus- he was treated. Commission’s recom- pension, he consented to the continuing supervised mendation of treatment and monitoring of his reinstatement with extensive [Emphasis courtroom. added.] OF ADMONITIONS ISSUED SAMPLING January-December, 1991.
Respondents were admonished for dealing failing . . . restraint exercise raising attorney, vindictively a defendant and his bond, manifesting personal the defendant’s against attorney animus defendant’s counsel. An asserting contempt mainly cannot be held the interest of his client. making inappropriate potentially
. . . offen- subject sive comments in the courtroom which are misinterpretation by others. condemning . . . his sexual publicly someone for exhibiting against preference, thereby prejudice an segment society. entire improperly appointing attorneys, . . . who had dealings judge, financial with the as successor case, giving appear- receivers in a civil rise to the ance of favoritism and economic self interest. . failing affirmatively preserve . . to act court, allowing a conserva- assets of a ward of the torship meager
to continue which drained estate despite repeated challenges by the of its assets ward, supporting his decisions with inconsistent failing dispose in the rulings, and of the case Appeals. set forth the Court of Public manner judiciary jeopardized by even confidence appearance judge defying authority of a higher court. 441 Mich Levin, J. *75 under ad- allowing many to remain . . . cases time, contrary long unduly for an visement 3A(5) which of Judicial Conduct of the Code Canon promptly” of "dispose requires judge the court. business of oppo- their parties failing . . to disclose
. members of represented by litigation were nents in representing contemporaneously law firm legal matters. in unrelated and his wife [Emphasis added.]