Judicial discipline; In re Brown; In re Probert; The Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC)

In an order, the court accepted the JTC’s recommendation and ordered that respondent-Judge “Slaven be conditionally suspended without pay for six years, effective on the date of” the order. The order further provided that should he “be elected or appointed to judicial office during that time, he ‘will nevertheless be debarred from exercising the power and prerogatives of the office until at least the expiration of the suspension.’” In deciding the matter, the court applied the standards set forth in Brown to the JTC’s factual findings, which it adopted as its own. It also applied the Brown standards to the JTC’s legal conclusions, which it also adopted as its own. The JTC determined, and the court agreed, that “respondent committed misconduct by violating” Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2A; Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2B and MCR 8.115(B); Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2C; Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(14) and (3); Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(B)(1); MCR 9.104(2) and (3); and MCR 9.202(B)(1)(c) and (e).

Concurring, Chief Justice Cavanagh agreed with the majority’s factual findings and conclusions as to misconduct but wrote separately to express doubts about the court’s “authority to impose a conditional suspension on a respondent who is no longer a sitting judge.” While she remains open to considering whether Probert was correctly decided, respondent here “effectively conceded that the sanction is proportionate.”

Also concurring, Justice Bolden agreed with the court’s decision and with Chief Justice Cavanagh that respondent “‘effectively conceded that the sanction is proportionate.’” She wrote separately to address “the unique circumstances in which this default judgment is appropriate and also to caution about whether such a penalty would be considered proportionate had there been participation, a challenge, or an appeal by respondent.”