Case Title: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Robert Michelson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1998AP002376-J

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1999-04-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-2376-J 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable Robert 
Michelson, Municipal Court Judge. 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
The Honorable Robert Michelson, 
 
Respondent.  
 
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MICHELSON 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
April 27, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
  
 
No. 
98-2376-J 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 98-2376-J 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable Robert 
Michelson, Municipal Court Judge. 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
 
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
The Honorable Robert Michelson, 
 
 
Respondent.  
FILED 
 
APR 27, 1999 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL disciplinary proceeding.  Reprimand imposed.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   This is a review pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 757.911 of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendation for discipline of the judicial conduct panel 
concerning the judicial misconduct of the Hon. Robert Michelson, 
municipal judge for the city of Racine. Based on facts to which 
Judge Michelson and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission stipulated 
                     
1  Wis. Stat. § 757.91 provides: Supreme court; disposition. 
The supreme court shall review the findings of fact, conclusions 
of law and recommendations under s. 757.89 and determine 
appropriate discipline in cases of misconduct and appropriate 
action in cases of permanent disability. The rules of the 
supreme court applicable to civil cases in the supreme court 
govern the review proceedings under this section.  
No. 
98-2376-J 
 
2 
in this proceeding, the panel concluded that Judge Michelson’s 
intemperate, discourteous and undignified comments from the 
bench concerning the daughter of a woman who was appearing 
before him constituted a wilful violation of the provision of 
the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires a judge to be 
“patient, dignified and courteous to all litigants, jurors, 
witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an 
official capacity.” SCR 60.04(1)(d). The panel concluded further 
that the judge’s comments and the statements he made in a letter 
apologizing for them demonstrate a bias based on socioeconomic 
status and a wilful violation of the Code provision dealing with 
bias, SCR 60.04(1)(e):  
 
     A judge shall perform judicial duties without 
bias or prejudice. A judge may not, in the performance 
of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias 
or prejudice, including bias or prejudice based upon 
race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, 
age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and 
may not knowingly permit staff, court officials and 
others subject to the judge’s direction and control to 
do so.  
 
As 
discipline 
for 
that 
judicial 
misconduct, 
the 
panel 
recommended that Judge Michelson be reprimanded.  
¶2 
We determine that a reprimand is the appropriate 
discipline for Judge Michelson’s judicial misconduct. As the 
panel observed, his intemperate expression of his personal views 
concerning the character of a person who was not before him and 
about whom he knew only what her mother had told him was wholly 
inappropriate to the judicial demeanor expected and demanded of 
No. 
98-2376-J 
 
3 
members of the judiciary and caused significant damage to the 
integrity of the judicial system. In addition to the reprimand, 
the panel suggested that Judge Michelson participate in anger 
management and diversity training to assist him in conforming 
his conduct to the appropriate standards of judicial behavior. 
We agree.  
¶3 
Judge Michelson has served as municipal judge for the 
city of Racine for 24 years and has not been the subject of a 
prior judicial disciplinary proceeding. The judicial conduct 
panel to which the Judicial Commission’s complaint was referred 
consisted of Courts of Appeals Judges Daniel Anderson, Patricia 
Curley, and Michael Hoover. The panel made findings of fact 
based on the parties’ stipulation.  
¶4 
On 
January 
5, 
1998, 
after 
completing 
some 
140 
arraignments and discussing with three or four people their 
requests for additional time to pay fines, Judge Michelson 
turned to the matter of a person appearing in front of him 
requesting additional time to pay a fine. The woman appeared 
alone, and for all practical purposes no other people were 
present except for court personnel.  
¶5 
When the woman told the judge she would not be able to 
pay her fine because she had to care for the two small children 
of her daughter, who had become ill, Judge Michelson said he 
could not accept that excuse for the reason that the woman had 
No. 
98-2376-J 
 
4 
no legal obligation to support her daughter’s children. When he 
asked why the children’s father could not support them, the 
woman explained that the father of the older child no longer 
could be found and that the identity of the younger child’s 
father had not been established.  
¶6 
Upon hearing that response, Judge Michelson became 
angry and said, “I suppose it was too much to ask that your 
daughter keep her pants on and not behave like a slut.” He then 
stated that the daughter should not have brought into the world 
children she was not in a position to support. The judge 
subsequently established a monthly payment plan for the fine.  
¶7 
The woman, whose daughter was neither a party to the 
matter before 
the 
judge 
nor present 
in 
the 
court, was 
embarrassed and angered by the judge’s comments. When she 
reported them to her other daughter, a high school student, that 
daughter sent the judge a letter demanding an apology. Judge 
Michelson sent a letter stating, in part:  
 . . . I will clearly state that my remarks are 
what I personally believe -– that people should not 
bear children out of a marriage relationship; that it 
is immoral, and often means that a child will grow up 
both without a father and in poverty. With the planet 
already overcrowded, my personal belief is that a young 
woman who finds herself unmarried and pregnant should 
get an abortion.  
 
However, whatever my personal beliefs, it is not 
always appropriate for a judge to express them from the 
bench because the judge is in a position of power at 
that moment and the person being spoken to cannot talk 
No. 
98-2376-J 
 
5 
back. For that, having used my position to strongly 
express my personal views, I apologize.  
 
¶8 
Based on those facts, the panel concluded that Judge 
Michelson’s comments from the bench about the woman’s daughter 
were intemperate, discourteous and undignified and that those 
comments and the statements in his letter of apology manifested a 
bias based on a person’s socioeconomic status. The panel 
concluded that Judge Michelson’s conduct constituted wilful 
violations of the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct 
requiring a judge to be patient, dignified and courteous to 
litigants and others with whom the judge deals in an official 
capacity 
and 
to perform 
judicial 
duties 
without bias 
or 
prejudice. Accordingly, the panel concluded that Judge Michelson 
engaged 
in 
judicial 
misconduct, 
defined 
in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 757.81(4)(a) to include a wilful violation of a rule of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct.  
¶9 
In recommending a reprimand as discipline for that 
misconduct, the panel took into consideration that the character 
of the daughter of the woman who was before Judge Michelson was 
immaterial to the matter being decided and that the judge had no 
information upon which to base his negative characterization of 
the daughter. The panel expressed its view that the judge’s 
language showed a “significant lack of judgment and insight into 
appropriate judicial demeanor” and was “egregious and reveal[ed] 
No. 
98-2376-J 
 
6 
a profound lack of sensitivity and disrespect for the litigants 
and other members of the public who appear before the court.”  
¶10 The panel also noted the damage Judge Michelson’s 
comments did to the integrity of the judicial system, as 
evidenced by the younger daughter’s demand for an apology. The 
panel considered Judge Michelson’s apology, even though well-
intentioned, as further reflecting a bias unacceptable in a 
member of the judiciary. The panel viewed his letter as 
demonstrating a “lack of sensitivity to the socioeconomic 
differences 
in 
society” 
and 
“reflect[ing] 
an 
unacceptable 
prejudgment of persons based upon their marital status and 
financial standing.”  
¶11 The panel distinguished Judge Michelson’s conduct from 
that of judges previously disciplined for judicial intemperance 
in language and for expressions of bias on the basis that his 
involved only one incident, not numerous incidents considered in 
four prior cases, in which one judge was removed from office and 
three others were suspended from office for significant periods. 
The panel also noted Judge Michelson’s attempt to apologize, even 
though flawed, as showing a level of remorse not evident in the 
prior cases. Finally, the panel acknowledged Judge Michelson’s 
full cooperation with the Judicial Commission in this matter.  
No. 
98-2376-J 
 
7 
¶12 We adopt the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and determine that a reprimand is the appropriate 
discipline to impose for Judge Michelson’s judicial misconduct.  
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the Hon. Robert Michelson is 
reprimanded 
for 
judicial 
misconduct 
established 
in 
this 
proceeding.  
 
 
1