The Original Letter — February 2023
To Whom it May Concern:
I write to you as a citizen, public servant, and criminal justice professional with concerns about the current Judicial Tenure Commission policies on private versus public discipline. I recently endured judicial misconduct and had to go through the complaint process.
I fully believe that the true depth and breadth of judicial misconduct complaints are not being captured. As a result, I propose three key areas and urge the Justices to reform them:
When I was subjected to judicial misconduct, I had no idea where to go or how to begin. I argue that most citizens have no idea the JTC exists. I believe that a formal notice in courthouses advertising the JTC as a safe place to investigate judges would make a world of difference and prevent bad judges from staying on the bench. It would educate the public and act as a deterrent against judicial misconduct.
The current paper process and the notary requirement seem antiquated and unnecessary. A digital process would make complaints much easier and streamlined. If we can digitally apply for mortgages, loans, and other important life decisions, why can’t citizens make a digital complaint when a judge abuses their power?
The paper process prevents people from bringing legitimate complaints forward, especially if they do not have access to a notary. If this requirement is absolutely necessary, perhaps the posted notice could inform them of an on-staff notary at the courthouse who can assist them with their complaint.
I believe a database should be established for complaints. This allows citizens to make better informed voting decisions as well as keep tabs on habitual offenders.
The judge who threatened me has a notorious and long-standing reputation for bad behavior in his community. However, when I looked for information on him, I found no formal complaints. I had no way to know that he was a repeat offender. Through research, I found a thinly veiled complaint that didn’t list his name, but completely matched a 2020 news article on misconduct in which he swayed a case by speaking about it before it was bound over to circuit court. He was given a warning. If this had been made public in 2020, I think it would likely have prevented what happened to me.
There’s also no way to check on the status of my complaint. I think this is important for closure, especially after what was a very traumatic experience for me.
I hope that these suggestions are helpful and that they will be taken into consideration. If you would like additional information, I would be happy to assist.
Here’s How I’d Handle It in 2026
After navigating the Judicial Tenure Commission complaint process firsthand, it became clear that Michigan’s current structure for reporting and tracking judicial misconduct is unsustainable, creating harmful systemic barriers for citizens.
Judicial accountability mechanisms only function if the public can access them, understand them, and trust them. The following reforms are proposed to strengthen accessibility, transparency, and institutional legitimacy.
Most Michigan citizens are unaware that the Judicial Tenure Commission exists, what it does, or how to initiate a complaint. Courthouses contain notices regarding jury duty, filing fees, and procedural rules. They do not prominently display information about how to report judicial misconduct. That needs to change. Transparency functions as deterrence. When judges know reporting mechanisms are visible and accessible, accountability strengthens.
Proposed ReformThe current complaint process requires paper submission and notarization. In 2026, this is structurally outdated and unconscionable. Citizens can digitally execute mortgages, file tax returns, and access court dockets online. Yet judicial misconduct complaints remain anchored in paper processing and notary access. For many individuals, especially those in rural or economically constrained areas, access to a notary is not simple. The procedural barrier itself discourages reporting.
Proposed ReformAccess should not depend on logistical privilege.
Judicial elections are one of the only accountability mechanisms available to Michigan voters. Yet non-public summaries, redacted disciplinary findings, and the absence of named records limit the public’s ability to make informed decisions. In documented instances involving Barry County Judge Michael Schipper and Allegan County Judge Margaret Zuzich Bakker, misconduct findings were anonymized while simultaneously incorporated into annotated judicial ethics materials. The legal community learned from the violation. The public did not learn who committed it. When complaints and cautions remain obscured, patterns of behavior are impossible to track.
Proposed ReformSunlight prevents repetition.
The Database That Shouldn’t Have Had to Exist
Following the original 2023 submission of these reform proposals, no public database materialized in Michigan.
No institution directed it. No grant funded it. No official body requested it. It was built because the need was obvious.
The database compiles publicly available disciplinary actions, documented findings, and related reporting into a centralized, searchable format so citizens, attorneys, and voters can evaluate judicial conduct patterns without navigating fragmented sources. It exists to do what the current system does not: make oversight visible.
Access the Database ?The Preventative Function of Public Discipline
Judicial discipline is not solely punitive. It is preventative. When a Canon violation involving public commentary on a pending case is handled quietly, the system resets without signaling corrective urgency. If earlier findings had been publicly visible and clearly attributed, subsequent litigants and voters like me would have been better positioned to assess risk and advocate for reform.
Oversight loses effectiveness when it operates in informational silence.
Alerts judges that visible misconduct carries visible consequences, for themselves and for colleagues who observe the outcome.
Informs the bar and the public so defense counsel, litigants, and voters can exercise heightened scrutiny where warranted.
Reinforces due process safeguards by creating a documented pattern that appellate courts can reference when reviewing a judge’s conduct history.
Strengthens confidence in the judiciary itself. A system that holds its own accountable is a system people can trust to hold others accountable.
Complainant Transparency and Closure
There is currently no accessible method for complainants to track the status of their complaint. After engaging in what is often a traumatic and intimidating process, complainants are left without visibility into outcomes or timelines. This undermines trust in the system.
A secure online portal where complainants could check the status of their own submission would increase procedural legitimacy, provide clarity and closure, reduce speculation, and improve institutional credibility. None of this is radical. These are standard features of functional government complaint systems in 2026.
Michigan’s judicial system should not rely on citizens discovering oversight mechanisms by accident. Accountability should be visible by design.
What I Learned
What I’ve learned from 2023 to now is fairly simple: judicial independence and judicial accountability are not opposing forces. They are co-dependent.
A modern judiciary must provide accessible reporting mechanisms, transparent disciplinary outcomes, publicly understandable standards, and real-time status communication. Without these elements, confidence erodes. These reforms are not radical. They are structural updates aligned with modern public administration standards.
JTC — How to File a Grievance — jtc.courts.mi.gov ?
JTC — Frequently Asked Questions — jtc.courts.mi.gov/faq ?
JTC Mailing Address: 3034 West Grand Boulevard, Suite 8-350, Detroit, MI 48202 | (313) 875-5110
Michigan Supreme CourtMichigan Supreme Court Clerk — courts.michigan.gov ?
Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct — courts.michigan.gov ?
Additional Reading:
