An Attorney Is Only as Good as the Judge They’re Working With

People who are navigating the legal system spend enormous energy on attorney selection. Is this lawyer experienced? Do they know this jurisdiction? Do they have a relationship with the prosecutors? Those questions are legitimate. But there is a prior question — one that receives far less attention — about the judicial environment in which even the best attorney must operate.

An attorney is only as good as the judge they are working with. In a courtroom where the judge follows the law, applies the guidelines, treats both parties with procedural fairness, and exercises genuine impartiality, an excellent attorney can be the difference between outcomes. In a courtroom where none of those conditions hold, the attorney’s skill is largely beside the point.

What Judicial Misconduct Looks Like in Practice

Clutch Justice’s coverage of Michigan courts has documented a consistent set of patterns that appear across multiple jurisdictions. In Barry County, Judge Michael Schipper has imposed sentences reportedly three to five times beyond Michigan’s sentencing guidelines — departures that require on-record justification and carry appellate exposure. In Allegan County, Judge Margaret Zuzich Bakker has continued proceedings despite Michigan Court of Appeals authority that directly challenged the legal foundation of the prosecution she was advancing.

Five Warning Signs of Judicial Abuse

Identifying judicial misconduct before it affects your case requires knowing what it looks like. The patterns that Clutch Justice monitoring has identified most consistently:

Excessive sentencing without adequate on-record justification — particularly when departures are systematic rather than case-specific. Rulings that disregard controlling appellate precedent without any analysis of why the precedent does not apply. Visible courtroom bias — differential treatment of attorneys or parties, impatient or hostile conduct toward defense counsel while deferring to the prosecution, or procedural rulings that consistently favor one side. Conduct suggesting a personal agenda rather than neutral adjudication — including the pursuit of outcomes in cases where judicial impartiality should require disqualification. And restriction of public access to hearings or records without valid legal basis, which insulates conduct from the transparency that accountability requires.

What Accountability Requires

Meaningful judicial accountability requires multiple tracks operating simultaneously. Recusal motions for documented bias or conflict of interest. Appellate review of rulings that depart from controlling authority. JTC complaints for conduct that violates the Code of Judicial Conduct. Court monitoring by community organizations and journalists who observe proceedings and publish what they see. And judicial elections — the mechanism available to voters who are paying attention to who sits on their local bench.

None of these mechanisms works without documentation. A complaint to the JTC without specific documented conduct is unlikely to produce results. An appellate brief that cannot point to specific rulings departing from specific precedent is unlikely to succeed. The foundation of all of it is people paying attention, recording what they observe, and putting it on the public record.