Editor’s Note: Since original publication, Judge Hartig has been diagnosed with a neurological disorder. See the update here.
You can also read about proposed legislation that would screen Michigan judges for cognitive and neurological ability here.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig faces allegations of misconduct and was deemed ‘unsafe to practice’ after a psychological evaluation.
- The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) filed a complaint against her after delays in releasing the evaluation report which indicated disruptive behavior.
- Judge Hartig made false statements to the JTC about the complainant, violating court rules regarding dishonesty.
- Her ongoing tenure raises concerns about judicial accountability and the JTC’s effectiveness in handling misconduct cases.
- The JTC has removed their complaint from their website, possibly to correct redaction issues with the report.
Five years of investigation, continued misconduct, and a report deeming a judge “unsafe to practice”; that’s what it takes before the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) will act.
Because today, June 4, 2025, the JTC filed a formal, albeit improperly redacted complaint against Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig of the 52nd District Court in Troy, Michigan.
This complaint, designated as FC No. 109, outlines multiple allegations, two of which are of particular interest:
Refusal to Provide Psychological Evaluation Report
The JTC initiated an investigation into Judge Hartig’s misconduct, during which concerns about her mental health emerged. Consequently, on April 15, 2024, the Commission ordered her to undergo a psychological evaluation at All Points North, a facility chosen and paid for by the Commission.
APN’s website does not list a single Michigan location; she was sent to a facility in Colorado.
Judge Hartig underwent this evaluation in late May 2024. The resulting report, completed on June 6, 2024, was provided exclusively to her.
Despite multiple requests from the Commission between June and October 2024, Judge Hartig did not furnish the report. Instead, she sought extensions and ultimately objected to releasing it. It wasn’t provided until December 5, 2024; six months after the report’s completion.
The evaluation concluded that Judge Hartig was “unsafe to practice”, citing disruptive behavior and personality dysfunction.
REPORTED HERE FIRST: Failed JTC Redaction States Hartig “Unsafe to Practice”
Clutch Justice was the first to break the contents of the report, discovering JTC only cosmetically redacted the document, allowing me to easily highlight the redaction, copy it, and paste the text.
Try it for for yourself below:
Timeline of Discovery: Machine-Readable Redaction
Initial Document Review
- While reviewing court-file materials related to the mental health report, an apparent redaction was observed.
Technical Verification
- The redacted document was examined at the digital layer level.
- Text beneath the visible redaction was determined to be machine readable.
- This indicated the redaction was cosmetic rather than fully flattened or securely removed.
Metadata / Layer Analysis
- Digital inspection revealed that the underlying text had not been permanently destroyed.
- The redaction existed as a surface-level visual block rather than a properly scrubbed file.
Preservation of Evidence
- Copies were preserved demonstrating that the redacted content could be accessed or reconstructed.
- Screenshots and comparison files secured.
Legal Implications Identified
- Michigan Court Rules regarding record integrity and disclosure were cross-referenced.
- The presence of machine-readable underlying text raised concerns regarding:
- Record alteration,
- Disclosure compliance,
- Accuracy of representations regarding document handling.
Publication of Findings
- Clutch Justice published a documented analysis of the machine-readable redaction issue.
- The publication timestamp predates subsequent mainstream coverage.
Dissecting JTC’s Footnote
The footnote for the JTC’s botched redaction states:
The blacked out portion of this paragraph is sealed at the request of respondent pending a determination by presiding authorities as to whether it should be kept sealed during the pendency of the proceedings.
The JTC failed to use destructive redaction on the report, allowing it to still be machine readable and available for copy and paste.
Many law firms and police departments use destructive redaction to prevent this type of situation from occurring.
The Commission asserts that her prolonged withholding of this report violated Michigan Court Rules, specifically MCR 9.220(D) and MCR 9.202(B)(1)(f), which mandate compliance with reasonable Commission demands.
2. False Statements to the Commission
In her December 5, 2024, response to the Commission’s October 28, 2024, letter, Judge Hartig claimed the initial Request for Investigation was filed by Ms. Dana O’Neal, a whistleblower that Judge Hartig chose to identify as a “disgruntled” former employee.
However, the Commission confirmed that this statement was false, as Ms. O’Neal was not the complainant. This alleged misrepresentation is cited as a violation of MCR 9.104(1), which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation.
My Analysis
I have contacted both the Judicial Tenure Commission and the Oakland County District Court for comment on why a Judge deemed “unsafe to practice” over a year ago is allowed to have unchecked power over defendants.
With so many lives in their hands, judicial cognitive and neurological fitness is crucial. See the proposed legislation to address this gap here.
It also leaves me to wonder why Judges of poor health or caliber are allowed to abuse defendants and staff for years on end before something is finally done about them.
As you may recall, JTC complaints are often private, leaving voters completely in the dark on what’s really happening in court rooms, and arguably, interfering in the ability to make informed voting decisions through an unnecessary shroud of secrecy.
The unsung heroes, like Dana O’Neal, are the people who really make these reports happen; who risk it all to do what’s right. She and others no doubt had to work tirelessly to get the JTC to act.
Implications and Next Steps
Judge Hartig was recently removed from handling felony cases due to allegations of mistreating staff and holding grudges against prosecutors. The JTC’s complaint follows on the heels of this action.
The proceedings will follow the protocols established by the Michigan Supreme Court, and could lead to disciplinary actions, including censure, suspension, or removal from office.
This case yet again highlights the lack of timely mechanisms available to uphold judicial integrity, leaving one to question whether the JTC is willing or even able to act.
As the process unfolds, this can go one of two ways: it will serve as a testament to the accountability measures embedded within Michigan’s judicial system. Or, it will once again disappoint and fail Michigan voters seeking stronger oversight against unprofessional judges.
Update, 6/5/2025:
The JTC has removed their formal complaint from their website, presumably to correct the redaction.
Read more here.
