Opinion ID: 836180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: conduct of the executive director of the jtc.

Text: On January 16, 2008, the executive director of the JTC personally served respondent with a 28-day notice pursuant to MCR 9.207(D)(1). [26] The executive director arrived unannounced at respondent's chambers accompanied by an armed Michigan State Police lieutenant. Apparently, unbeknownst to either respondent or the director, the police officer recorded the conversation. The director presented respondent with the 28-day notice, and asserted that respondent's office was vacant because respondent had moved outside his district, as evidenced by his homestead tax exemption affidavit. [27] In addition to the notice, respondent was also presented with a petition for interim suspension without pay, which the director indicated would be immediately filed and mostly likely granted because respondent was not in office. The director then offered respondent the opportunity to resolve the matter quickly without any shame, proceedings, [or] accusations of perjury by resigning immediately, [28] presenting respondent with a prepared resignation letter on respondent's court letterhead. The director stated that, although the JTC indicated that respondent had until 9:00 a.m. the next morning to sign the resignation letter, the director would prefer to have the resignation letter signed right now so that he could take the letter with him. When the respondent protested, seeking time to talk to somebody, the director replied that respondent would be suspended in a matter of days and that it would all become public at a time when respondent was up for election. The director reiterated the 9:00 a.m. deadline, adding that respondent also faced allegations involving the sexually inappropriate behavior, and the director would get respondent thrown off [the bench] just for that. When respondent asked questions regarding the basis of the allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior, the director replied that he was not there to do any type of interview and would not explain anything else. The director told the respondent that he could take the easy way out and sign the resignation letter; otherwise, the director welcome[d] the opportunity and would engage to the fullest if respondent chose to fight it. When respondent observed that criminal defendants were given more consideration than was being afforded to him, the director responded that immediately signing the resignation letter would avoid having to drag [respondent's] name through the mud, avoid any embarrassing situations, and avoid the stain to the state judiciary of having a judge who violates the law, commits perjury, [and] sexually harasses staff. After respondent refused to sign the resignation letter on the spot, the meeting concluded. A moment later, the director was heard saying that it's like shooting ducks in a barrel. When these proceedings commenced, the director's threats to humiliate respondent and drag his name through the mud were soon realized. The details of the present allegations were widely disseminated in the local newspapers, on television and on the Internet over the course of several months. The controversy, including the facts surrounding the meeting between respondent and director, were the subject of numerous newspaper articles, editorials, and letters to the editor. [29] While the actions of the JTC director have been called into question, this Court need not address whether he violated any ethical rules because the proper forum for the review of the JTC director's actions is the Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC).