Opinion ID: 848667
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Assessment of Costs

Text: The Michigan Constitution created the Judicial Tenure Commission and outlines the power of the Michigan Supreme Court to discipline judges: On recommendation of the judicial tenure commission, the supreme court may censure, suspend with or without salary, retire or remove a judge for conviction of a felony, physical or mental disability which prevents the performance of judicial duties, misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance or conduct that is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice. The supreme court shall make rules implementing this section and providing for confidentiality and privilege of proceedings. [Const 1963, art. 6, § 30(2).] Pursuant to this constitutional provision, the Court has promulgated court rules governing judicial discipline proceedings. As the JTC noted, no specific court rule or statute provides for imposing costs in judicial disciplinary matters. We have imposed costs in several cases in the past. The JTC majority relies on those cases in support of its assessment of costs here. But those cases are not on point. In In re Thompson, [5] costs were recommended and ordered, but the judge did not contest them. Likewise, in In re Trudel, [6] costs were ordered. By then, however, Judge Trudel had resigned from the bench. In In re Cooley, [7] Judge Cooley consented to the commission's decision and recommendation, including the assessment of costs. In the present action, respondent did not consent to the JTC's recommendation, nor has he resigned. Rather, he has challenged the JTC's findings and its recommendation that costs be assessed. We agree with the JTC concurrence/dissent that a respondent is entitled to notice of what conduct will subject the respondent to the assessment of costs. Past decisions of this Court have not provided notice because they were issued without explanation of the standards used in assessing costs. We agree with the JTC concurrence/dissent's observation: Respondent Noecker cannot be said to have been given notice of the standards to be applied and the type of expenses that could be assessed in this case.... The imposition of actual costs has been extremely rare in the history of reported cases. The commission has not set standards for the imposition of costs until today. Therefore, imposition of costs in this case, if the Supreme Court believes they are authorized by law, would violate the spirit of In re Brown. Where a judge has been given no notice of the standards for imposing costs, the judge should not be made to pay them. We leave for another time the determination whether the assessment of costs is consistent with the Michigan Constitution. In this case, respondent should not be required to pay the costs of his prosecution because he had no notice of the standards for imposing them. We have opened an administrative file to consider the constitutional issue and the standards to be applied in the event costs can be assessed in these matters. ADM 2004-60.