Opinion ID: 836180
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: examiner's conduct

Text: As previously noted, the JTC's examiner visited respondent's chambers and demanded that he resign from his position. I concur with the facts in this regard as set forth by the majority, and agree that, at present, the proper forum for the review of the JTC director's actions is the Attorney Grievance Commission. Ante at 54. I do disagree, however, with the majority's implication that the tactics engaged in by the examiner, even if they eventually prove to have been wrongful or inappropriate, have any particular relevance to the matter now before us. This Court cannot, as a function of the examiner's behavior, avoid its responsibility to address respondent's misconduct. To do so would be tantamount to adopting, in the context of judicial discipline, some variant of the exclusionary rule, which requires the exclusion of reliable evidence when the constable blunders. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 496, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). Here, there is no claim that the examiner obtained any evidence in this case by unlawful means. Moreover, if we were to allow the examiner's troubling behavior to influence our evaluation of respondent's misconduct by failing to impose a sanction based solely on respondent's misconduct, our decision would be contrary to MCR 9.200, which states: An independent and honorable judiciary being indispensable to justice in our society, subchapter 9.200 shall be construed to preserve the integrity of the judicial system, to enhance public confidence in that system, and to protect the public, the courts, and the rights of the judges who are governed by these rules in the most expeditious manner that is practicable and fair. In sum, disregarding a judge's misconduct out of disdain for the examiner's behavior is not a rational response designed to preserve the integrity of the judicial system, nor does it enhance public confidence in that system. Thus, in keeping with this Court's responsibility to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, the Court should determine an appropriate sanction based solely on respondent's misconduct, irrespective of the examiner's conduct which remains the subject of administrative consideration at this time.