Grand Rapids lawyers go to bat for embattled district judge

The Grand Rapids Press and WOOD-TV reported over the weekend that some of the legal elite in the Grand Rapids area have asked the Attorney Grievance Commission to open an investigation against Judicial Tenure Commission Director Paul Fischer, accusing him of trying to extort the resignation of Rockford District Court Judge Steven Servaas.

A dozen former presidents of the Grand Rapids Bar Association, according to WOOD, and "prominent local attorneys," according to the Grand Rapids Press, signed a 26-page letter sent to the Attorney Grievance Commission, in which they claim that Fischer insisted that Servaas resign immediately or face criminal charges.

They point to a secret recording made in the judge's chambers that features Fischer explaining to Servaas how the JTC intended to proceed in the matter. The recording can be accessed by following the Grand Rapids Press link in the first paragraph of this post.

Servaas' supporters ask that Fischer be disbarred and that he shoulder the judge's estimated $200,000 in legal fees that have been racked up in the JTC proceedings against him.

According to the Grand Rapids Press:

"The latest salvo continues a dispute between Fischer and Servaas, who allegedly lived outside his judicial district, drew two sexually suggestive doodles and made a lewd comment to a co-worker at a retirement party."

Servaas' JTC hearing is scheduled for July 14.

An interesting wrinkle is that Servaas is running unopposed for re-election in November. If a misconduct finding against Servaas is made, Fischer wants the Michigan Supreme Court to remove him from the ballot, or to wait to remove him from office until his new term begins next year. See The Michigan Lawyer: Trial court elections: Whole lotta shakin' goin' on.

AGC and ADB appointments announced

The Michigan Supreme Court has reappointed several members of the Attorney Grievance Commission and has made chair and vice-chair designations.

Named in the court's press release:

"Jan A. Brandon of Ann Arbor, volunteer and past member of the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents.

"Kent J. Vana of Grand Rapids, partner in the law firm of Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett, LLP.

"Karen Woodside of Detroit, assistant prosecuting attorney, Wayne County.

"Brandon, Vana, and Woodside, all current members of the AGC, are reappointed to terms ending on Oct. 1, 2011. Vana is also appointed vice-chairperson for a term ending Oct. 1, 2009.

"Richard B. Poling, Jr. of Troy, attorney and shareholder in the law firm of Poling, McGaw & Poling, P.C. Already a member of the AGC, Poling is appointed chairperson for a term ending Oct. 1, 2009."

The court has also made leadership designations and has announced appointments and reappointments to the Attorney Discipline Board:

Craig H. Lubben of Kalamazoo, attorney and member of the law firm of Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey, PLC. He is appointed to a term ending Oct. 1, 2011.

"William L. Matthews, CPA of West Bloomfield, former managing partner, Plante & Moran Financial Advisors. Already a member of the ADB, Matthews is reappointed for a term ending Oct. 1, 2011.

"Carl E. Ver Beek of Grand Rapids, attorney and of counsel to the law firm of Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett LLP. He is appointed to a term ending Oct. 1, 2011.

"William J. Danhof of Lansing, attorney and principal in the law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC. Already a member of the ADB, Danhof is reappointed for a term ending Oct. 1, 2011. He is also appointed chairperson for a term ending Oct. 1, 2009.

"ADB member Thomas G. Kienbaum of Birmingham, attorney and member of the law firm of Kienbaum, Opperwall, Hardy & Pelton, PLC. Kienbaum is appointed vice-chairperson for a term ending Oct. 1, 2009."

How to get censured by the Michigan Supreme Court

"[W]e order that the Honorable Norene S. Redmond be publicly censured. This order stands as our public censure."
In re: The Honorable Norene S. Redmond Judge, 38th District Court Eastpointe, Michigan. SC: 134481 (Michigan Supreme Court Order).

Nobody likes to be called an "asshole."

Especially a judge.

Especially if she finds out about it.

And especially when it's coming from the mouth of a 16-year-old whose mother is waiting in a jail cell for someone to throw her $500 bail that the judge just ordered on the mother's misdemeanor domestic violence and felony resisting and obstructing charges.

What's a judge to do about a situation like this to avoid censure by the Michigan Supreme Court?

Here are some things not to do:

Don't reconvene the bond hearing on the record without the mother present.

Especially when she's not represented by counsel.

Especially when you state for the record that her kid has called you a bad name.

And especially when the when next thing you do is up the ante on the mother's bail from a $5,000/10 percent bond to $25,000 cash or surety.

And even more especially when the kid comes before you a few minutes later, accepts responsibility, asks that he be punished instead of his mother, and you don't back down.

* * *

Nobody likes guys who are accused of stealing from the elderly.

Especially a judge who is arraigning two of them in a courtroom under the watchful eyes of television cameras.

Especially when the police say they went inside a 90-year-old woman's house, swiped $800 and overcharged her for a painting job.

Especially when the police suggest the guys are flight risks.

What's a judge to do about a situation like this to avoid censure by the Michigan Supreme Court?

Here are some things not to do:

Don't respond to a defense attorney's argument for a low bond because his client's record is clean, he lives in the state and would likely get probation if convicted, by using words to the effect that it would be a shame if that's the way things turned out.

Especially when the next thing you do is set the guy's bond at $750,000 and, for good measure, tell the other guy, who does have a rap sheet, that his bond is a cool $1 million.

And even more especially, when doing all of this might give folks the idea that the whopping big bails were intended to punish these guys before they even went to trial instead of just making sure that they show up for it.

***

Nobody trying to get a decent night's sleep likes a noisy party that lasts until almost dawn.

Especially when this happens more than once.

Especially when one of the partygoers is on the hostess's front porch at 4 a.m., talking loudly on a cell phone.

Everybody likes it very much when the cops come and write the hostess a noise ticket that requires her to appear in court.

Especially when they'll have the opportunity to go to court as well and tell the judge just what they think about what's been going on in the neighborhood.

What's a judge to do about a situation like this to avoid censure by the Michigan Supreme Court?

Here are some things not to do:

Don't read a petition from the complaining neighbors without disclosing that you know some of them.

Especially when you let the neighbors repeatedly interrupt the hostess, who had no attorney, during the course of the proceedings.

Especially when you repeat some of the comments and complaints, even though they have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

And especially when doing all of this could make people think that the sentence you handed down for a noise ticket -- fines and costs, two years reporting probation with the first 30 days served in jail, daily preliminary breath tests, home visits, 100 hours of community service, no parties unless approved by the neighbors who signed the petition, and no one to spend the night except the folks who live there -- just might have been motivated by personal anger and an approving crowd.

***

Judges don't like to be censured by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Especially when they think they are right.

What's a judge to do about a situation like this?

Judge Redmond issued a statement. As reported in the Detroit Free Press:

"I have always done what I believe is right for the community and I will continue to do so[.] ... I know that I can put my head on my pillow tonight and be at peace with the decisions that I made."

Related reading:

Judge Redmond's Judicial Tenure Commission Settlement Agreement

Macomb Daily: Supreme Court scolds judge

Detroit News: Court censures Redmond

A Pakistani strongman thumps the legal system: a courageous response

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
- Dick the Butcher
Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, scene ii

A laugh line with which Shakespeare shares with his audience his supposed contempt for attorneys?

The Bard's recognition that the path to tyranny is best paved with rubble from a wrecked legal system?

There's room for debate about Shakespeare's motivation for penning this line for a script written over 400 years ago.

But it's beyond debate that when you have the raw power to muscle aside judges and lawyers, you have the stage to yourself and the only script that need be followed is the one you write.

That's how it's being played out in Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency a week ago to "curb extremism." This included placing the country's Supreme Court chief justice under what amounts to house arrest. Critics say this was done to thwart a ruling on the legality of Musharraf's re-election last month while he was (and still is) the chief of the Pakistani Army.

Hundreds of normally staid Pakistani lawyers took to the streets. Police beat them, gassed them into submission and hauled them away.

A half a world away in the United States, attitudes about the legal system are frequently shaped by a "whose-ox-is-being-gored" mentality. Whether lawyers are loved or loathed is often dependent on the result produced, and for whom.

But what if everyone's oxen are being gored by a government strongman?

And a nation's lawyers risk life and limb to tell him he's wrong.

Their courageous stand for the rule of law commands respect and admiration.

Update 11/13/07: State Bar of Michigan President Ron Keefe has issued a statement supporting Pakistani lawyers who have protested against the shutdown of that nation's legal system.

MSC recusal standards: constitutional amendment being drafted

A state constitutional amendment that would require Michigan Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves "in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned" is in the works at the request of Rep. Mark Meadows, (D-East Lansing).

This would include situations where campaign contributions to a justice from a party's lawyer or the lawyer's law firm exceed a specified amount over a given time period.

The amendment is being patterned after Rule 2.11(A)(4) of the American Bar Association's (ABA) Model Code of Judicial Conduct, according to a spokesperson from Meadows' office.

Meadows, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Legislative Service Bureau to prepare the amendment earlier this month, after the committee took testimony from Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network (MCFN).

The MCFN has been making its case for the MSC to develop recusal standards when justices, litigants and money are intertwined. This is a suggestion the court is not likely to act on any time soon. See, Michigan Lawyer: Campaign cash and recusal: a lost cause in the MSC?

Public financing of MSC election campaigns has also been a long-standing priority for the MCFN. See, Michigan Lawyer: Justices, money, elections and recusal In his testimony, Robinson told the committee that public financing of MSC election campaigns would eliminate "much of the cause for concern about recusal."

What would Judge Andrews do? Here's what . . .

"If that had been my wife, I'd have beaten the hell out of you."

That's what Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Steven N. Andrews said a few days ago while sentencing a man who crashed a wedding reception and groped a female partygoer's breasts, according to a report in the Oakland Press.

It was quite a scene at the reception. Someone called the cops to break up the resulting fight. The guy's pants went down three times in front of a police dashboard camera's unblinking eye.

The tape, with a strategically placed blur, probably would be great stuff for one of those voyeuristic TV police-video shows.

The prosecutor said the man was "mumbling" and "extremely intoxicated." Defense counsel blamed the dropped trousers on a broken waistband button. He said his client doesn't remember any of it.

The man pleaded no contest to indecent exposure, aggravated assault and disorderly conduct. Judge Andrews ordered a two-month work-release jail term, 18 months of probation, no drinking, and $1,100 in costs and fines.

Perpetrator caught. Plea taken. Sentence imposed. A few chuckles, perhaps, for those who saw the tape. So far, so good.

But what about Judge Andrews' statement about how he would have reacted if his wife were the assault victim?

It's one thing when you're sitting around the dinner table with friends and family and say, "I'll tell you what, sweetheart of mine, if that guy would have touched you, I would've knocked him into next Tuesday."

But there is a big problem when judges say such things in open court.

There's a standard of conduct that's expected in Canon 3(A)(3) of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct.

The way I read that standard, it comes down to this: when you're wearing the robe, you should keep your cool on the outside and your anger to yourself.