As 2024 drew to a close, there were bills pending in the state senate (SB 871) and house of representatives (HB 5724) that were being cited as “The Judicial Protection Act” (JPA). The purpose of these bills was to protect the physical safety and personal information of judges and their families. The senate passed a substitute for the house bill, but the house did not take action before adjourning for the year. I had hoped and assumed that the bills would be reintroduced in the 2025 legislative session, which they were, but to no avail. The senate passed the bill in April 2025, and the House Judiciary unanimously passed the JPA out of committee six months later. But as the year came to a close, the bill never made it to the governor’s desk.

This column will describe my own negative experiences as a judge, and the invasions of privacy that my family endured. I will describe the proposed legislation, express my support, but also acknowledge that it is not without valid criticism and concerns.

HARASSMENT AND INVASION OF PRIVACY

I retired from the circuit court bench in June of 2023. The reason that I put the word “retired” in quotation marks in the title of this article is that when I left the bench, I wasn’t actually ready to retire. I was 55 years old and had school-age children who still needed to be supported. When I announced my retirement, I stated publicly that I was retiring in order to spend more time with my family and that the extremely busy court docket did not allow me the freedom I desired to attend my children’s events and activities. Many friends and colleagues were shocked, (some even mad) and suspected that there was either a health concern or some other “secret” reason for my retirement. In reality, the reasons I cited were valid and true, but there was another reason that I did not publicly share: the fact that my family and I had been subjected to very disturbing behavior and actions aimed at us by litigants.

Before taking the bench, I was a prosecutor for 25 years. During this time, not one person issued a credible threat or engaged in harassment of me or my family. This was in spite of the fact that I prosecuted thousands of cases involving the most heinous crimes and dangerous criminals, including murder, felonious assault, armed robbery, home invasion, and criminal sexual conduct.

That all changed when I became a circuit court judge in 2018. My docket included every case type cognizable by the circuit court, including criminal, civil, PPOs, and all domestic cases. I quickly learned that the most volatile and angry litigants were not the criminal defendants, but divorce/custody litigants who did not get their way. Some of these litigants decided to vent or protest by altering photos (aka creating memes) of myself and my family and posting them on social media. One litigant started numerous social media pages and websites in my name, all with the goal of posting lies, altered photos and memes about myself and my family. On his webpage, he also sold clothing items with my likeness on the backside. He was later placed on probation and his probation officer told me that the probationer had an altered photo of me hanging above his bed. Several social media posts included veiled threats indicating that everyone would be better off if I were dead. Another litigant sued me no less than four times based on my actions as a judge. (All cases were eventually dismissed.) He also publicly (and falsely) accused me of trafficking my wife for sexual purposes.

All of these actions were disturbing, but the event that impacted my decision to retire the most was when a litigant came to our house at 10:30 p.m. with a process server to serve me with a lawsuit. The litigant stayed in the driveway outside their vehicle while the process server came to the front door and loudly banged it several times with his fist. My wife and children had already been asleep, and of course this woke everyone and had a lasting negative impact on my family. The incident was recorded on our security cameras. I did not answer the door but instead called the police, who addressed the situation by issuing a trespass warning to the litigant. The litigant then posted my home address in a message on a community Facebook page indicating that it was a great place to serve me with lawsuits. I know that this litigant obtained my address by looking at records from the county Register of Deeds office, because in another post, he falsely accused me of transferring property in order to avoid it being subject to a potential judgment against me from his lawsuits.

I am sure that I am not the only judge who has experienced or is experiencing this type of behavior. I know of at least two incidents in the last few years where judges or their families were attacked and killed in their homes. My goal in disclosing my experience is not to garner sympathy, but to explain why I support the Judicial Protection Act.

THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

The proposed bills largely mirror federal law that allows judges to request that persons or public bodies not publish, or remove, the personal identifying information, of the judge and their immediate family members. Personal identifying information includes date of birth, residential and other property addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, financial information, license plate numbers, and school information of family members. “Persons” includes individuals and other legal entities. If a person or public body does not remove the personal identifying information within five days of a request, the judge or their immediate family member may commence an action for injunctive relief in the circuit court.

EXCEPTIONS

The version of the Judicial Protection Act last passed by the state senate includes exceptions. One broad exception applies to information published as part of a news story, commentary, editorial, or other speech on a matter of public concern. There are also several exceptions related to use of personal identifying information for commercial, financial, and investigative purposes.

CONCERNS

I acknowledge that there are several valid concerns regarding the legislation. Some are concerned that it will impose an undue burden on public bodies. Other critics feel that it is not fair to other public officials, i.e., "Why only protect judges?" Some feel that the legislation is too broad in that it allows family members to commence civil actions for non-compliance. All of these concerns are valid and should be considered by the legislators.

CONCLUSION

Based upon my own experience, the benefits of this proposed legislation outweigh the concerns. Both the bar and the public at large expect and deserve a highly qualified judiciary that is not hampered by threats and harassment. The behavior that I and other judges have experienced may lead qualified candidates to choose not to pursue election to the bench and may cause excellent judges to resign or retire early. This legislation would ease the concerns of qualified judicial candidates, especially those with young families, regarding their safety if they become a judge. For these reasons, I applaud any effort to protect judges and their families. I encourage all members of the bar to express their feelings on this bill to their representatives in the legislature.