Judicial Conflicts of Interest in Allegan County: Why Impartiality Matters

Multiple Allegan County readers have emailed me, all deeply concerned about judicial impartiality surrounding Judge Matthew Antkoviak.

At the center of the controversy is Judge Antkoviak’s close personal connection to a local organization that frequently intersects with the court system: Safe Harbor Children’s Advocacy Center.

His wife is the Executive Director of Safe Harbor, playing an active leadership role in the very organization whose cases and interests sometimes appear before Judge Antkoviak’s courtroom. And according to multiple sources, additional family members also work for the advocacy group.

And while as a lawyer the ethics rules may have only required him to disclose this fact to clients and let them weigh the calculated risk, the circumstances are quite different for Judges.

Which, for court-appointed situations, one can argue that there was no choice at all. According to a 2021 report by the Urban Institute, up until Michigan Indigent Defense Council standards were implemented, some county judges were able to handpick court-appointed attorneys; I am unable to determine what the 2018 procedure was for Allegan County.

These relationships create a clear conflict of interest under Michigan law and, more importantly, it strikes at the heart of the public’s right to an unbiased judiciary.

Why it Matters

Safe Harbor Children’s Advocacy Center provides services to children who are alleged victims of abuse and neglect. They also provide some ancillary services to Allegan County Schools. The most recent annual report can be viewed here.

Their work often interfaces directly with criminal prosecutions, CPS investigations, family court matters, and victim advocacy efforts. As a result, Safe Harbor is not a distant nonprofit operating in isolation; it is an active stakeholder in the outcomes of these types of cases in Allegan County.

When a judge’s spouse holds a leadership position in an organization with a vested interest in certain types of cases, the appearance of partiality is not hypothetical; it’s palpable.

The Law is Clear: Recusal is Required

Under Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(C), a judge must disqualify themselves in a proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including, but not limited to, cases where:

A spouse has a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding (Canon 3(C)(1)(d)).
Thus, the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned based on personal relationships or associations (Canon 3(C)(1)).
Similarly, MCR 2.003(C)(1)(g) mandates recusal where a judge’s spouse is known to have more than a minimal interest that could be substantially impacted by the proceeding.

Safe Harbor’s active role in cases involving allegations of child abuse and neglect – cases Judge Antkoviak presides over – creates exactly the type of situation Michigan’s ethical rules are designed to prevent. It’s not enough for a judge to believe they can be impartial; the judiciary must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

*Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(C)*

Consider if grant funding were connected to the number of closed cases. Then, take it one step further, and consider when some of that funding is used as payroll going toward half of a judge’s monthly living expenses.

As the Michigan Supreme Court emphasized in People v. Aceval, 486 Mich 887 (2010):

…public trust in judicial neutrality is foundational, and “[t]he test is not whether actual bias exists, but whether there is an appearance of bias sufficient to cause doubt about the fairness of the proceedings.”
People v. Aceval, 486 Mich 887 (2010)

Public Confidence is at Stake

Allowing a judge to preside over cases tied, even indirectly, to an organization where his spouse holds leadership sends a dangerous message: that justice is not fully impartial, and that personal relationships could influence outcomes.

In sensitive cases involving allegations of abuse where emotions run high and stakes are enormous, it is especially critical that no party perceives the deck as stacked.

One citizen, who asked to remain anonymous said,

This is really serious for many cases. Even cases as big as People v. Loew; how many have been influenced because of these connections? Where are ethics and professional responsibility in all of this?
Concerned Citizen, Allegan County

Court Records indicate that as an attorney, Judge Antkoviak did at one time appear in People v. Loew, albeit before going to trial.

I’ve discussed this case a few times due to troubling ethics and you can read additional coverage here.

Moving Forward

Judge Matthew Antkoviak must recuse himself from any case where Safe Harbor Children’s Advocacy Center has any involvement, significant connection, or vested interest in the outcomes of cases, whether directly, through a party, or through advocacy efforts, to uphold both the letter and the spirit of Michigan’s judicial ethics standards.

Justice demands not only fairness but the unquestioned appearance of fairness.

The citizens of Allegan County and every person who walks into a courtroom deserve nothing less.