Guest Interview — Mark M. Koroi, JTC Candidate. The following Q&A was conducted by Rita Williams with Mark M. Koroi, a Plymouth, Michigan attorney and candidate for the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission special election, July 2025. Koroi’s responses are reproduced in his own words. Clutch Justice does not endorse candidates but provides space for candidates who represent a meaningful perspective on judicial accountability to speak directly to readers.
The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission received 622 complaints in 2024 and closed 586 without action. A vacancy on the Commission is not a procedural footnote. It is an opportunity to place someone on the body who has actually filed judicial ethics complaints, understands why MCR 9.261 confidentiality is a structural problem, and believes the JTC should be something other than a document shredder with a budget. Mark Koroi is that candidate.
I have been an attorney in the City of Plymouth since 1991 and have practiced at virtually all areas of law practice in the federal, state and local justice systems. I have served several terms in the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly since 2013. Some of my more newsworthy cases involved extensive and landmark civil rights litigation against the City of Hamtramck and a Michigan Supreme Court case I argued involving the issue of homeowner’s rights to remove fixtures from homes in foreclosure proceedings.
I do have a history of filing grievances against judicial members who I believe have crossed ethical boundaries in their conduct and, therefore, have some direct familiarity of how the process works. I believe that the JTC should take on a more public role and further pursue a policy of activism and transparency in addressing allegations of judicial misconduct.
In addition to my personal experiences with certain judicial officers who operated with a reckless disregard toward their obligations, I and the general public have seen cases reported in the media of judges whose behavior has been atrocious and have nevertheless collected their salary for years while a very slow and cumbersome disciplinary process took many years to ensure that appropriate corrective action was implemented to protect the public.
The disciplinary proceedings against Judge Theresa Brennan took many years to resolve and there was public expression of dissatisfaction and even outrage over the fact that Brennan continued to collect a judicial salary despite the serious nature of the then-pending allegations which were eventually proven. State Senator Joe Hune convened a town hall meeting to address citizen concerns about Brennan and media coverage was extensive.
Public confidence in the judiciary is the most urgent challenge for the JTC — and such confidence is eroded when investigations and charges of misconduct take an inordinate amount of time to be resolved. Citizens need to believe that arbitrary and capricious judicial conduct will be investigated and enforced, if necessary, in an expeditious and even-handed manner. Greater transparency is needed in the operations of the JTC so that the public can be reasonably assured that fair and proper proceedings are being conducted and are consistent with an effective public policy.
“Judicial reform” in the context of what has been recently occurring in Michigan would be in eradicating bias — or at least the appearance of bias — that may exist in the Michigan judiciary. Several years ago the Interfaith Council For Peace and Justice and the American Friends Service Committee’s Michigan Criminal Justice Program performed a credible statistical examination that they contended showed racial bias in the sentencing practices of a Washtenaw County Circuit Court judge.
A Detroit Free Press opinion piece from the study’s authors observed: “For almost 14 months, we have heard nothing from the JTC. Our complaint, raising serious issues of fairness in this judge’s actions, seems to have fallen in a black hole while he continues to sit on the bench handling potentially unjust sentences.” A needed reform in the judiciary would place complaints such as those filed by the ICPJ and AFSC on a priority level to both protect the public and increase public confidence in the actions of the JTC.
A major issue is the broad scope of confidentiality that is imposed by MCR 9.261 that cloaks JTC papers and operations with a pervasive secrecy that I believe is unwarranted and repugnant to public policy.
I will give an example that I believe reveals why this policy is flawed and needs to change. Some years ago I filed a JTC grievance against a Washtenaw County Circuit Court judge for using court facilities for a judicial election campaign, which clearly violated Section 257 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. Another citizen filed a complaint with the Michigan Secretary of State where an administrative law judge found a violation did occur and the matter was resolved. The Secretary of State proceedings and filings were all public record.
On the other hand, the JTC issued a “cautionary letter” to the offending judge after finding that a MCFA violation did occur — and those grievance proceedings were all confidential under Rule 9.261, despite the fact the Secretary of State proceedings were all a matter of public record. This dichotomy makes no sense. The public should be made aware when a judicial officer has received any type of adverse disciplinary finding — and to provide a cloak of confidentiality has no purpose other than to avoid embarrassment to the offending judicial official.
As stated above, MCR 9.261 confidentiality is unduly overbroad from a public policy standpoint. It is difficult to find any public officeholder in Michigan, or any occupational license holder, where disciplinary proceedings are cloaked in almost complete secrecy. Residential Builders Board and Motor Vehicle Service Repair Act licensees have their disciplinary proceedings a matter of public record. Likewise, judicial officers need to be subject to adequate public scrutiny.
Firstly, the cloak of MCR 9.261 confidentiality must be curtailed. Justice Brandeis once observed that sunlight is the best disinfectant. By publicly exposing the offending judicial officer to public scrutiny when any ethical violation has been found, this would serve as a deterrent to future unethical behavior — not only for that judicial official but for all in similar positions.
Secondly, the liberal imposition of suspensions without pay would likely provide a more effective deterrent to judicial misconduct rather than mere reprimands or paid suspensions.
This appears to be a major problem historically — that certain judges attract large amounts of grievances due to their on-the-bench offensive behavior. Some judges are habitually confrontational with litigants and attorneys. My opinion is that each grievance needs to be decided on its individual merits — however if a judge receives a series of informal or formal discipline relative to similar recurring offensive conduct, the JTC should seriously consider removal from the bench as an appropriate remedy.
Technically, many persons who come before the court do not have an “employee” status that affords them protections under the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act, whereas court administrators and staff do. Examples of non-protected individuals who could be retaliated against are public defenders and other court-appointed individuals who may be in a position to observe unethical behavior from a judicial officer. My personal experience is that I had been a court-appointed conservator who filed a grievance against a judge whom I perceived as engaged in an ethics violation — I had no WPA protection as I was not a court employee. Expanding the WPA or otherwise granting rights to such reporting individuals would be consistent with public policy.
I agree that public defenders, criminal defendants and other court users need to have an effective way of sounding off regarding inequities in the court system. Former State Senator Joe Hune, as I have alluded to above, had convened a town hall meeting to allay citizen concerns regarding then-Judge Theresa Brennan. This step was unprecedented and unusual, but was well-received by the public. The public needs to be informed about what avenues it may have — such as the Senate Judiciary Committee, SBM Representative Assembly, and others — to express concerns about court practices and operations.
The JTC could have public notices posted in every courthouse in Michigan that would inform the public regarding their rights in having perceived judicial ethical violations reviewed and investigated.
I have witnessed injustices in our court system on a not infrequent basis. By way of example, several months ago I witnessed a criminal defense attorney in a homicide case advise the court that his client wished to allocute immediately before sentencing. The judge petulantly responded that she did not want to hear what the defendant had to say. The right of allocution before sentencing is a fundamental right of every criminal defendant — and to have a judge cavalierly deny such a right sends a strong message that the concerns of the justice system’s most vulnerable participants simply do not matter to those in power. That is exactly the problem the JTC exists to correct — and exactly the problem it too often declines to address.
Sources and Context
