Opinion ID: 849062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: judicial tenure commission

Text: The JTC adopted most of the findings of fact of the master, but not his conclusions of law. [7] The JTC disagreed with the master's conclusion that respondent did not have a duty to disclose her relationship with Fletcher when she appointed him to represent indigent defendants, or where he appeared before her as retained counsel. Further, the JTC disagreed with the master's conclusion that as a matter of law, in order for the false statements to have constituted judicial misconduct, they had to be what the master characterized as lies. After setting forth the factors promulgated by this Court in In re Brown, 461 Mich. 1291, 1292-1293, 625 N.W.2d 744 (1999) (Brown I), see also In re Brown (After Remand), 464 Mich. 135, 138, 626 N.W.2d 403 (2001) (Brown II), the JTC proceeded to find factors one through three, and five, relevant to respondent's conduct. [8] With regard to factor one, the JTC determined that respondent's fifty-six appointments to Fletcher over the course of seventeen months while the two were engaged in an intimate relationship, and her failure to disclose that fact, constituted a pattern or practice of misconduct. [9] With regard to factor two, the JTC observed that this misconduct constituted misconduct on the bench. With regard to factor three, the JTC concluded that, although no evidence existed that respondent's conduct resulted in any actual prejudice to the administration of justice, such conduct did have a negative effect on the appearance of propriety in judicial decision making and the integrity of the judicial office in general. [10] With regard to factor five, the JTC concluded that respondent's misconduct was deliberate as opposed to spontaneous, because she had considered whether the appointments to Fletcher were improper and had reached the subjective conclusion that they were not. In this regard, the JTC found that respondent's subjective conclusions about the propriety of presiding over these cases did not negate the fact that the relationship existed and opposing counsel and others concerned with the integrity of the judiciary should have been so advised. With respect to factor five, the JTC also determined that respondent's false statements to the police appeared calculated to deflect any suspicion that she was the motive behind Leann Fletcher's murder. The JTC concluded that the fact that respondent corrected her erroneous statements within a matter of days ... [did] not diminish the gravity of her having made statements... on a material factorthe motive for the murder of Leann Fletcher. In addition to these four factors, the JTC considered four additional factors. [11] First, the JTC concluded that respondent had reacted to the JTC investigation and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings candidly, cooperatively, and in good faith. Second, concerning the appointment procedures, the JTC found that respondent had instituted a blind draw rotation system subsequent to the investigation. According to the JTC, this demonstrated respondent's ability to improve her conduct. Further, concerning her statements to the police, the JTC found that, except for the first interview, respondent had fully cooperated with authorities in the prosecution of Fletcher. The JTC also determined that respondent had no prior disciplinary record, and that there was considerable evidence of her competency and good reputation in the community. Finally, the JTC found that respondent's relatively short judicial career constituted a mitigating circumstance, and that there was no reason to believe that she would repeat the misconduct. We now address the issues raised by respondent in her petition to reject the JTC's recommendation.