Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

Order 

September 17, 2014

147235 & (6)

_______________________________________

In re:

The Honorable Sheila Ann Gibson SC: 147235

Judge, 3rd Circuit Court

Detroit, Michigan 

_______________________________________/

On June 11, 2013, the Judicial Tenure Commission filed a Decision and 

Recommendation. It was accompanied by a Settlement Agreement with the respondent, 

Third Circuit Court Judge Sheila Ann Gibson, who consented to the Commission’s 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to the Commission’s recommendation that 

she be publicly censured. On September 25, 2013, this Court entered an order remanding 

the matter to the Commission for further explication, retaining jurisdiction. The 

Commission issued a Supplemental Decision and Recommendation on November 12, 

2013. On March 7, 2014, this Court entered an order rejecting the recommendation of a 

public censure and remanding the matter to the Commission for a new recommendation 

or a status report, retaining jurisdiction. 

The Commission issued its Second Decision and Recommendation on April 14, 

2014. It is accompanied by an amended settlement agreement, in which the respondent 

stipulated to findings of fact, and consented to a sanction that would be no greater than a 

public censure and 30-day suspension without pay.

As we conduct our de novo review of this matter, we are mindful of the standards 

set forth in In re Brown, 461 Mich 1291, 1292-1293 (2000):

[E]verything else being equal:

(1) misconduct that is part of a pattern or practice is more serious than 

an isolated instance of misconduct;

(2) misconduct on the bench is usually more serious than the same 

misconduct off the bench;

(3) misconduct that is prejudicial to the actual administration of justice 

is more serious than misconduct that is prejudicial only to the appearance of 

propriety;
2

(4) misconduct that does not implicate the actual administration of 

justice, or its appearance of impropriety, is less serious than misconduct 

that does;

(5) misconduct that occurs spontaneously is less serious than 

misconduct that is premeditated or deliberated;

(6) misconduct that undermines the ability of the justice system to 

discover the truth of what occurred in a legal controversy, or to reach the 

most just result in such a case, is more serious than misconduct that merely 

delays such discovery;

(7) misconduct that involves the unequal application of justice on the 

basis of such considerations as race, color, ethnic background, gender, or 

religion are more serious than breaches of justice that do not disparage the 

integrity of the system on the basis of a class of citizenship.

The JTC should consider these and other appropriate standards that it may 

develop in its expertise, when it offers its recommendations.

In this case, those standards are being applied to the findings of the Judicial 

Tenure Commission. The Commission adopted the stipulations of fact agreed to by the 

respondent and the examiner. We adopt the following findings of the Commission as our 

own:

1. Judge Gibson is, and at all material times was, a judge of the 3rd

Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan.

2. As a judge, she is subject to all the duties and responsibilities 

imposed on judges by the Michigan Supreme Court, and she is subject to 

the standards for discipline set forth in MCR 9.104 and MCR 9.205.

3. On November 8, 2012, Detroit-area television station WXYZ-TV 

broadcast a story about Judge Gibson. The story basically stated that they 

had monitored the times Judge Gibson had arrived at the Lincoln Hall of 

Justice and had left the Hall of Justice during the week of October 14, 2012.

4. WXYZ-TV reported that on Monday, October 15, 2012, Judge 

Gibson arrived at the courthouse parking lot at 10:55 a.m. and took the 

bench at approximately 11:00 a.m. 

5. There were 18 matters set for hearing the morning of the 15th: 10 

matters at 9 a.m., two matters at 9:30 a.m., and six matters at 10:00 a.m. 
3

Litigants, attorneys, and witnesses were present in the courtroom as early as 

9 a.m. Therefore, some of the litigants, attorneys and witnesses may not 

have been able to have their matter addressed in as timely a fashion as they 

would have had if Judge Gibson had arrived at the courthouse by 9 a.m.

6. WXYZ-TV reported that on Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Judge 

Gibson arrived at the courthouse parking lot at 10:38 a.m. and took the 

bench at approximately 11:00 a.m. 

7. There were 16 matters set for hearing the morning of the 16th: 11 

matters at 9 a.m., two matters at 9:30 a.m., and three matters at 10:00 a.m. 

Litigants, attorneys, and witnesses were present in the courtroom as early as 

9 a.m. Therefore, some of the litigants, attorneys and witnesses may not 

have been able to have their matter addressed in as timely a fashion as they 

would have had if Judge Gibson had arrived at the courthouse by 9 a.m.

8. WXYZ-TV reported that on Wednesday, October 17, 2012, Judge 

Gibson arrived at the courthouse parking lot at 10:58 a.m. and took the 

bench at approximately 11:00 a.m. 

9. There were 22 matters set for hearing the morning of the 17th: eight 

matters at 9 a.m., eight matters at 9:30 a.m., and six matters at 10:00 a.m. 

Litigants, attorneys, and witnesses were present in the courtroom as early as 

9 a.m. Therefore, some of the litigants, attorneys and witnesses may not 

have been able to have their matter addressed in as timely a fashion as they 

would have had if Judge Gibson had arrived at the courthouse by 9 a.m.

10. WXYZ-TV reported that on Thursday, October 18, 2012, Judge 

Gibson arrived at the courthouse parking lot at 10:30 a.m. and took the 

bench at approximately 11:00 a.m. 

11. There were 15 matters set for hearing the morning of the 18th: six 

matters at 9 a.m., four matters at 9:30 a.m., and five matters at 10:00 a.m. 

Litigants, attorneys, and witnesses were present in the courtroom as early as 

9 a.m. Therefore, some of the litigants, attorneys and witnesses may not 

have been able to have their matter addressed in as timely a fashion as they 

would have had if Judge Gibson had arrived at the courthouse by 9 a.m.

12. WXYZ-TV reported that on Friday, October 19, 2012, Judge Gibson 

arrived at the courthouse parking lot at 10:05 a.m. and took the bench at 

approximately 11:00 a.m. 
4

13. There were 15 matters set for hearing the morning of the 19th: three 

matters at 9 a.m., 10 matters at 9:30 a.m., and two matters at 10:00 a.m. 

Litigants, attorneys, and witnesses were present in the courtroom as early as 

9 a.m. Therefore, some of the litigants, attorneys and witnesses may not 

have been able to have their matter addressed in as timely a fashion as they 

would have had if Judge Gibson had arrived at the courthouse by 9 a.m.

14. WXYZ-TV reported that on these five days Judge Gibson left the 

courthouse between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.

We also adopt the Commission’s conclusion that these facts demonstrate, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent breached the standards of judicial 

conduct in the following ways:

The Commission finds that Respondent has committed judicial 

misconduct, violat[ed] the Code of Judicial Conduct, creat[ed] the 

appearance of impropriety and breach[ed] the standards of judicial conduct. 

Respondent is responsible for all of the following:

(a) Misconduct in office, as defined by the Michigan 

Constitution of 1963, as amended, Article 6, Section 30, and 

MCR 9.205;

(b) Conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of 

justice, as defined by the Michigan Constitution of 1963, as 

amended, Article 6, Section 30, and MCR 9.205;

(c) Failure to establish, maintain, enforce and personally 

observe high standards of conduct [so] that the integrity and 

independence of the judiciary may be preserved, contrary to 

the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1;

(d) Irresponsible or improper conduct which erodes public 

confidence in the judiciary, in violation of the Code of 

Judicial Conduct, Canon 2A;
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 17, 2014

h0910

5

Clerk

(e) Conduct involving impropriety and the appearance of 

impropriety, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, 

Canon 2A;

(f) Conduct which is prejudicial to the proper 

administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1);

(g) Conduct which exposes the legal profession or the 

courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in 

violation of MCR 9.104(2); and

(h) Lack of personal responsibility for her own behavior 

and for the proper conduct and administration of the court in 

which she presides, contrary to MCR 9.205(A). 

After reviewing the Second Decision and Recommendation of the Judicial Tenure 

Commission, the settlement agreement, the clarification of the amended settlement 

agreement, the standards set forth in Brown, and the above findings and conclusions, we 

accept the recommendation of the Commission and ORDER that the Honorable Sheila 

Ann Gibson be publicly censured and suspended without pay for 30 days, effective 21 

days from the date of this order. This order further stands as our public censure.

KELLY, J., not participating.