Opinion ID: 2174333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: wilful neglect of adoption docket and refusal to respond to requests by the scao

Text: The problems underlying this charge began with the departure of respondent's secretary, Cindy Cameron, who played a large role in processing adoption cases. After Mrs. Cameron left the court, the respondent asked Mrs. Irene Leonard to act as his secretary until he obtained a new one. Mrs. Leonard was the adoption investigator for the court and was somewhat familiar with the adoption proceedings. She did not, however, have training or experience with respect to the additional duties previously performed by the respondent's secretary. With no training provided, Mrs. Leonard was forced to teach herself by reviewing old files. Court procedure apparently went well for a brief period. When a case was ready for hearing, Mrs. Leonard would obtain a date from Judge Seitz and the matter would proceed. His relationship with Mrs. Leonard inexplicably soured in April 1990 after he returned from a vacation and learned that Mrs. Leonard was participating in Ms. Cameron's wedding. Mrs. Leonard testified that Judge Seitz avoided her, made himself inaccessible, literally would not talk to her, and would not respond to her requests for hearing dates. She made the situation known to the court administrator, Mr. Mario Pace. During this period, Judge Seitz was complaining to Mr. Pace about Mrs. Leonard. He also complained that Mrs. Leonard was bothering him and not getting her paperwork right, but he never gave Mr. Pace any examples with respect to what she was doing wrong, nor did he ever tell Mrs. Leonard what she was doing wrong, if indeed she was doing anything wrong. In place at the court was a chain of command administrative order, which directed that any job performance complaints a judge might have about any court employee were to be handled through the court administrator, Mr. Pace. It was Mr. Pace's responsibility then to deal directly with the employee. Additionally, court employees were not to communicate directly with the judges. Any complaints were to be directed to their immediate supervisor, who in turn would contact Mr. Pace. [27] Judge Seitz argued that because of the administrative order, he could not tell Mrs. Leonard what had to be done or how to do it. He could not give her any instruction or direction. Judge Seitz claimed that the chain of command policy was the reason for the delays in his courtroom and for why he could not handle the problem more effectively. Because of a breakdown in communication, no one took the responsibility of ensuring that Mrs. Leonard was trained properly or performed her duties correctly. [28] The master found Judge Seitz' reluctance to speak to Mrs. Leonard compelled neither by the language of the order nor by common sense. He found Judge Seitz' attitude to be contrived, serving as a guise for his refusal to work with a court employee. After the breakdown in communication between Judge Seitz and Mrs. Leonard, Judge Seitz began keeping files in his office to which Mrs. Leonard had no access. As a result, there were cases in which Judge Seitz set hearing dates or signed orders of which Mrs. Leonard would have had no knowledge. Mrs. Leonard met with the Region I Court Administrator, Herb Levitt, on June 19, 1990, to voice her complaints about Judge Seitz' refusal to communicate with her. These complaints were relayed to personnel from the State Court Administrator's Office. At the meeting, which Assistant Region I Court Administrator, Greg Ulrich, also attended, Mrs. Leonard presented a list of adoption cases that she felt were being neglected by Judge Seitz. Mr. Levitt relayed the list to State Court Administrator, Marilyn Hall, who was also acting as special administrator of the Monroe County Probate Court. Mr. Levitt and Mr. Ulrich met with Judge Seitz and discussed, among other things, the pending adoption cases. Judge Seitz indicated that Mrs. Leonard was not preparing the files properly. On July 12, 1990, the State Court Administrator wrote to Judge Seitz, indicating that adoption matters were languishing and, with respect to a particular case, noting that the apparent refusal to discuss the case or give direction to a veteran court employee who has attempted several times to discuss the case with you was objectionable. Specific cases were listed as requiring action, and Judge Seitz was directed to hasten these cases and to apprise the State Court Administrator weekly in writing regarding the progress and dispositions made. The State Court Administrator did not receive a single contact from Judge Seitz. She attempted calling him weekly until the end of August, but never reached him. He neither returned her calls nor reported by mail as requested. Judge Seitz testified, however, that he never got any phone messages from the State Court Administrator. He claims that the entire issue became one of confusion, missed cues and lack of communication between [himself], the SCAO and the Court Administrator Pace. Although he did not contact the State Court Administrator, he did discuss the matters with the Region I Court Administrator. In addition, the assistant Region I Administrator kept in touch with the court director, Mr. Pace, regarding the neglected cases. After visiting the Monroe County Probate Court in August, the Region I Administrator was satisfied that the cases listed in the July 12, 1990, letter of the State Court Administrator were progressing satisfactorily, and he addressed a memorandum to the State Court Administrator on August 31 to that effect. Mr. Pace had advised Mrs. Leonard not to disturb Judge Seitz and to put everything to him in writing. Thus, she documented a number of cases in which she had submitted written requests to him to set hearing dates. These requests were not responded to by Judge Seitz, which led to another intervention by the State Court Administrator. On October 31, 1990, the State Court Administrator again wrote to respondent about the growing delays in certain adoption cases. She included a list of cases about which she was concerned. Judge Seitz was asked to review the list at once and to advise her of the dates they would be scheduled for hearing or explain why they could not. The letter expressly indicated that a response was expected no later than November 9. The SCAO received Judge Seitz' unsigned response, dated November 9, on November 14, 1990. Judge Seitz testified that he had spent a significant amount of time preparing his response; however, review of that response indicates that he made no reference to the twenty-one cases to which his attention had been directed. The master found that he had not reviewed the files and had set no hearing dates. Instead of responding to the requests made by the SCAO, Judge Seitz responded with a seven-page complaint about the performance of Mrs. Leonard. The conclusion of the letter was that he was referring the files to court director Pace for review and that he would schedule the cases for hearings within fourteen days of a certification of readiness from the director. Judge Seitz was apparently trying to bypass Mrs. Leonard on the ground that she had done a poor job in preparing the files; however, the master found that most of the files were in proper order and ready for action. At the hearing, Judge Seitz conceded that ten of the cases were ready and could have been set for hearing. After the November 14 letter, Judge Seitz made no further effort to communicate with the State Court Administrator or her staff. He testified at the hearing that any response beyond that letter would have been redundant. The SCAO found respondent's letter to be an inadequate response. On November 16, 1990, State Court Deputy Administrator Ferry directed Assistant Region I Administrator Ulrich to inspect the adoption files pending in Judge Seitz' court and to schedule cases for him. Judge Seitz was attending a seminar in Florida and could not be reached; however, Mrs. Leonard checked his docket book and found January 8, 1991, to be an open date. All open files were reviewed by Mr. Ulrich, with the assistance of Mr. Pace and Mrs. Leonard. A list was made and faxed to Mr. Ferry, who then wrote a letter to respondent. The November 16 letter stated that inspection of the adoption files showed no reason for postponement of scheduling the cases in question. The letter also indicated that certain cases were set for hearing on January 8, 1991, and that all parties had been notified. The letter listed other cases that did not require a hearing but only that Judge Seitz decide a motion or sign an order, and directed that Judge Seitz do so as soon as possible and no later than December 3. [29] Judge Seitz did not respond to the letter, nor was any action taken to comply. The master found it quite clear that Judge Seitz did not even begin work on any of the files, and, although Judge Seitz argued that he did, he could not give an example of action taken on any files. The master found that review of the files would have taken only a few hours and that, had Judge Seitz done so, he would have been able to complete the cases by December 3 as requested by Mr. Ferry. Because Mr. Ferry heard nothing from Judge Seitz by December 3, 1990, he again wrote to Judge Seitz on December 4, requesting a report. This request was also ignored. [30] On December 12, 1990, Judge Seitz scheduled two pretrial conferences for January 8, 1991, the same day the adoption hearings were scheduled. Apparently, these cases were going to be dismissed by the prosecutor, but they were listed for trial to further the prosecutor's efforts to resolve them. Upon learning that Judge Seitz had scheduled two cases for trial on January 8, 1991, the court staff concluded that Judge Seitz was going to ignore the adoption cases scheduled by Deputy Ferry. The scheduling was communicated to the SCAO, and the master found that, given Judge Seitz' failure to respond to Deputy Ferry's letters of November 16 and December 4 and the fact that Judge Seitz had taken no action on the matters that were deadlined for December 3, it was reasonable to believe that Judge Seitz intended to ignore the January 8 hearings. On December 14, Deputy Ferry instructed Mr. Levitt and Mr. Ulrich to go to Monroe County to obtain the files for the January 8 hearings in order that an outside judge, if needed, could be apprised of the matters. When asked about the apparent conflict, Judge Seitz responded that there would be no problem in handling the adoption cases, that the juvenile matters would not take long. [31] He also told them that the files were not available, that they were at his attorney's office, and could be picked up on Monday, December 17. The files were actually in Judge Seitz' office the entire time. He testified that he had become paranoid about the SCAO and that he kept the files to copy so that no changes could be made that would set [him] up. Deputy Ferry decided to assign Judge Kirkendall, who had previously been approved by Administrator Hall as an outside judge to hear the adoption cases on a stand-by basis, in light of Judge Seitz' statement that his attorney had the files. On December 17, 1990, Mr. Ulrich went back to Monroe, retrieved the files, and delivered them to Judge Kirkendall. On December 21, 1990, Judge Seitz sent letters to at least six prospective adoptive parents indicating that their adoptions had been detained since the spring because of unsatisfactory preparation by a court adoption employee. The letter went on to state that he had obtained the files from the employee, reviewed them, corrected any mistakes, and set their cases for hearing so that adoptions would be complete before Christmas, but that the State Court Administrator, apparently upon learning that he had obtained the adoption files, had assigned the cases to an outside judge. Judge Seitz stated: This action by a deputy State Court Administrator  who is neither a lawyer or [sic] a judge  has effectively prevented your adoption from being finalized before Christmas as I had attempted to do. I'm sorry that your case was one of the few which was caught up in the bureaucratic maneuvering. Five of the six known cases in which letters were sent were on the list of cases that Judge Seitz had been instructed to take action on by December 3. The sixth case was on the list of cases scheduled for January 8, 1991, but appeared to the master to be one that could have been concluded easily had Judge Seitz been willing to take appropriate action. [32] On January 8, 1991, Judge Kirkendall heard cases scheduled for that date. Judge Seitz was at the courthouse and could have heard the cases himself. The master found that it was not misconduct for Judge Seitz to schedule two bench trials on that day in light of his acknowledgment that he could handle the adoption hearings because the trials would not take long. [33] Relying on that finding by the master, Judge Seitz argues that the recommendation of the commission is inconsistent. Respondent denies that he failed or refused to perform his judicial duties. He argues that he was ready to schedule the cases for hearing within fourteen days of receipt of a certification from Court Director Pace that the cases were ready. Judge Seitz further testified that most of the cases at issue had no significant problems and could have been set for hearing in any event. The master found that respondent's failure to schedule the hearings was absolutely inexcusable. Judge Seitz argues that findings by the master on this issue are against the great weight of the evidence and fail to consider the context in which Judge Seitz was forced to operate. Judge Seitz argues that he felt besieged, that it was more Mrs. Leonard's fault than his, and that he was not given the chance to clear his docket. The master found and the commission agreed that Judge Seitz' behavior in the handling of the adoption cases constituted misconduct in office. More specifically, the commission found a persistent failure to perform judicial duties pursuant to MCR 9.205(C)(2); [34] a violation of the statutory directive that adoption cases are to have the highest priority in scheduling with an end to the earliest possible disposition, MCL 710.25(1); MSA 27.3178(555.25)(1); [35] a violation of the high standards of conduct necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary pursuant to Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct; [36] a failure to dispose of business promptly contrary to Canon 3A(5); [37] and a persistent failure to diligently discharge his administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence and judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of court officials contrary to Canon 3B(1). [38] The essentially undisputed evidence of this episode clearly demonstrates yet another example of the respondent's seemingly tireless and sometimes effective efforts to avoid being set-up while doing his best to isolate himself from people and procedures that offended him. A great deal of time, personnel, and administrative effort was expended to bring about a routine disposition of a group of uneventful cases that could have been accomplished by engaging in the kind of routine communication that keeps courtrooms and court dockets functioning throughout the state. We find, as did the master and the commission, that this episode constituted misconduct under the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Standards of Judicial Conduct as prescribed by MCR 9.205 and should subject the respondent to sanction. E. FAILURE TO FILE REPORTS WITH THE SCAO The formal complaint charged that Judge Seitz consistently failed, refused, or neglected to file Undecided Matters reports as required by MCR 8.107. The respondent failed to file such reports due on May 1, 1989, September 1, 1989, January 1, 1990, May 1, 1990, and January 1, 1991. The September 1, 1990, report was filed November 26, 1990. [39] These failures occurred despite the many letters and telephone reminders from the Region I Administrator's Office. [40] The SCAO cannot monitor a judge's case management if the judge neglects to file the reports required by the court rule. The master stated that refusing to adhere to the rule is a failure to discharge administrative responsibilities under the rule. The fact that the SCAO accepted tardy filings from the respondent does not excuse his failure to comply with the rule. The commission found that this behavior constituted conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice contrary to MCR 9.205(C)(4); [41] a failure to discharge administrative responsibilities diligently and to facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of court officials contrary to Canon 3B(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, [42] see In re Carstensen, 316 NW2d 889 (Iowa, 1981); and a violation of MCR 8.107. [43] This is another factually undisputed charge of misconduct for failure to comply with an explicit routine administrative task. We agree with the commission's finding of misconduct and accept the recommendation that it should be the subject of disciplinary action. II. MITIGATION DEFENSE Judge Seitz urges this Court to consider mitigating factors in determining a remedy. He does not assert that his conduct was at all exemplary or in good faith, but asks that his conduct be viewed in the context of the circumstances at the Monroe County Probate Court. The master summarized Judge Seitz' argument as follows: [I]t is argued that respondent suffered an adjustment disorder caused by stress primarily induced by an antagonistic fellow judge, aggravated by an inept or indifferent or biased Court Administrator's staff. This led to alcohol abuse, dependence on Mrs. Paz as an ally, anxiety, and withdrawal. He felt threatened, perhaps even to the state of paranoia. The master and the commission rejected respondent's mitigation defense. This Court has previously stated: There is no doubt that `good faith' should be considered as a mitigating factor to the acts of misconduct but not as an affirmative defense to charges of misconduct. In re Laster, 404 Mich 449, 461; 274 NW2d 742 (1979); In re Lawrence, 417 Mich 248, 267, n 14; 335 NW2d 456 (1983). Judge Seitz and the examiner read this quotation as stating the principle that mitigation cannot be used in determining misconduct but can be used to determine the discipline to be applied. There is certainly authority for this view. [T]he physical and emotional difficulties that petitioner experienced during a portion of the period in question, while they certainly merit sympathy and may serve in mitigation of the sanction, cannot be accepted as justification per se.... His conduct as a judge must be evaluated on the basis of objective criteria applicable to all judges similarly situated within the system. [ Mardikian v Comm on Judicial Performance, 40 Cal 3d 473, 485; 709 P2d 852 (1985).] We first note that the purpose of judicial discipline is not to punish, but to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The purpose of these proceedings is not to impose punishment on the respondent judge, or to exact any civil recovery, but to protect the people from corruption and abuse on the part of those who wield judicial power. [ In re Leon Jenkins, 437 Mich 15, 28; 465 NW2d 317 (1991) (citing In re Mikesell, 396 Mich 517, 528-529; 243 NW2d 86 [1976]).] In view of the fact that punishment is not a purpose of judicial discipline, this does not leave much room for mitigation. [44] Nevertheless, we would not preclude the possibility that personal mitigating circumstances could be considered in determining the discipline to be imposed when, and only when, it does not compromise the first and foremost goal of protecting the judicial process. Any conflict between exercising such a deference to a personal problem of the officeholder and the demands of the judicial office would need to be reconciled in favor of the integrity of the office. A judgeship is a privilege, not a right. [W]hen one commits judicial misconduct he not only marks himself as a potential subject of judicial discipline, he denigrates an institution. Accordingly, a decision on judicial discipline must be responsive to a significant institutional consideration, the preservation of the integrity of the judicial system. Institutional integrity, after all, is the core of institutional effectiveness. [ In re Probert, 411 Mich 210, 225; 308 NW2d 773 (1981).] As will be seen, there is no opportunity under the facts and circumstances of this case to mitigate the recommended action. [45] III. CONCLUSION The specific instances of misconduct set forth are of varying degrees of seriousness resulting in varying degrees of harm to the operations and reputation of the Monroe County Probate Court and the administration of justice generally. However, in our considered judgment none of these instances of misconduct is an isolated event, nor to be sure the result of inattention, lack of knowledge, or incompetence, but rather part of a mosaic of wilful, contentious, destructive, and sometimes malicious behavior. We are prompted to conclude that this is an occasion when the totality of the behavior is larger than the sum of its ingredients. Oftentimes we are required to take disciplinary action solely on the basis of the actions of a judicial officer, while only being able to speculate regarding the motivations behind the misdeeds. In this case, however, because of the respondent's penchant for recording his thoughts and feelings, we are afforded more than just a glimpse at these innermost thoughts and feelings. It is not a pretty picture. After nine days of hearings, including a great deal of testimony from the respondent himself, the master, Judge William R. Peterson, found the respondent to be a calculating, manipulative, arrogant man, without feelings for others. We cannot disagree. While we take no pleasure in exposing the personal travails of a troubled brother in the judicial family, our responsibility for the administration of justice, including a fair and measured review of the allegations against him, requires no less. As we examine the expressions of Judge Seitz, it conjures up specific impressions of belligerence, vindictiveness, hostility, bitterness, disrespectfulness, and considerable perversity of will and motive. These characteristics resonate discordantly when compared with the Code of Judicial Conduct, more specifically: A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom he deals in his official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers and of his staff, court officials, and others subject to his direction and control. [Canon 3A(3).] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. He must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. He must therefore accept restrictions on his conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizens and should do so freely and willingly. [Canon 2A.] (1) A judge should diligently discharge his administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court officials. (2) A judge should direct his staff and court officials subject to his control to observe high standards of fidelity, diligence and courtesy to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom they deal in their official capacity. [Canon 3B(1)-(2).] We conclude, therefore, that both by his actions and his expressed declarations as he went about the exercise of his duties, he has demonstrated an attitude, a mind-set, that leaves us firmly convinced that he is woefully unfit for judicial office. He not only exhibited a lack of the qualities from which judicial temperament springs, but he has exhibited a distinct pattern of injudicious temperament and conduct. There are precious few canons of judicial ethics and standards of judicial conduct that have escaped the behavior of the respondent. However, because we view his behavior in its totality, we prefer to isolate those canons and standards that go to the heart of his misbehavior rather than basing our findings on individual manifestations of his underlying difficulties. Accordingly, we find beyond doubt that the respondent is habitually intemperate within the meaning of Const 1963, art 6, § 30, and of the above-quoted canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, all of which constitutes misconduct in office under MCR 9.205(C)(3) and (4). We consider the respondent's behavior to be sufficiently serious and pervasive that his continuation in judicial office would be clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice, and, therefore, adopt that part of the Judicial Tenure Commission's recommendation that removes the respondent from judicial office. [46] Pursuant to MCR 7.317(C)(3), the Clerk is directed to issue the judgment order forthwith.