You may remember Clutch discussing the Judicial Tenure Commission investigation, digging into the processes and practices of the body that investigates judicial misconduct. Phase I (2024) documented where disparities show up; Phase II (2025) digs into why and spotlights structural quirks like transcript approvals and negotiated exits.
We all know it’s hard to hold a judge accountable. It can take YEARS, as we’re seeing with Judge Hartig, Judge Michael Schipper, and so many others.
But now, we’ve got hard numbers and REAL DATA explaining how and why, along with clues for writing complaints that actually move. Phase II of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) equity review digs into 15 years of grievance files and interviews with insiders. The topline: some disparities persist, definitions matter, and how you frame a complaint can change its odds.
But the big takeaway is that Judges and Attorneys especially need to step up. Stop giving bad judges free passes; your voice is taken more seriously than anyone else’s.
What Phase II Found (in plain English)
Disparities persist…depending on the definition of “full investigation.”
When “full investigation” includes even a transcript-only approval, grievances against Black judges were more likely to be escalated than those against white judges. When transcript-only approvals are excluded, race was not a significant predictor at that step.
Among cases that did reach full investigation, Black judges were more likely to get a public outcome (censure/suspension/removal).
However, when you group public + likely-public outcomes (i.e., what probably would’ve happened if a judge hadn’t left office), race was not significant. Translation: negotiated exits by judges, like that of Judge Roberts Kengis, muddy the metrics. White judges are more likely to leave via the side door to save face.
Who files the grievance matters.
Complaints filed by attorneys, JTC/Executive Director, judges, SCAO/Chief Justice or other non-litigants were more likely to be fully investigated than those filed by litigants/prisoners/family.
As a result, I don’t want to hear a single attorney complain about a judge ever again if they haven’t filed a complaint. You have a PROFESSIONAL DUTY to report bad judges, not just bitch and moan about them. Your voice is taken more seriously than anyone else’s and cold, hard data is backing that up. So roll up your sleeves and start reporting this stuff.
You MUST be the voice for everyday people, because we will not be taken seriously. Journalists, I argue that you also have a professional responsibility to file complaints. No longer can you just report on it; you must DO something. As Executive Director Lynn Helland often reminds me, ANYONE can submit a JTC complaint, and you should. If you see something, SAY something. The integrity of the system depends on it.
What you allege matters.
Allegations labeled ex parte communication, conflict of interest, delay/neglect, improper demeanor were far more likely to get a full investigation than “improper ruling” or “jurisdictional dispute” claims (which belong in appeals, not discipline). Several of those categories carry odds ratios around ~3× or more compared to “improper ruling.”
Most filings aren’t about “discipline-worthy” conduct.
The single biggest bucket is “review legal ruling”, which is the bucket for stuff the JTC can’t fix. That category alone swallows over half of all grievances, which helps explain why so many go nowhere. This can be especially frustrating if you know that a judge has poor demeanor and is unfaithful to the law. But what’s stopping complaints from going forward is the perception that it’s related to a legal outcome. Sever that belief right out of the gate. DO NOT speak at all about the outcome of the case and stick to just the procedural issues.
Process opacity is part of the problem.
I most definitely saw this one coming.
Interviewees described very different realities: naturally, the JTC staff viewed the system as fair, while many judges and judicial-ethics attorneys did not. The report flags definition gaps (e.g., transcript-only approvals) and calls for clearer, documented standards. No explicit discrimination was found, but the process design leaves a ton of room for unequal impact.
I absolutely agree with this analysis because there is zero transparency in the system as it stands today. There’s no electronic submission or tracking (Michigan is one of the only states who hasn’t embraced it). And let’s not forget that the complaints aren’t even mailed where they alleged to be mailed; they’re picked up from the post office.
How to Write a JTC Complaint That’s More Likely to Stick
So from all of that, it might seem hopeless, but there’s nuggets of hope we can take from this, and we can use this data to make a difference in the system.
1) Aim at conduct the JTC actually polices
Focus on ethics issues that Phase II shows correlate with escalation:
- Ex parte contact
- Conflict of interest
- Delay/neglect of duties
- Improper courtroom demeanor (hostility, bias, insults)
These categories outperformed “improper ruling” and similar appeals-issues in moving to full investigation. Use the exact labels in your headings; leave nothing for interpretation and spell it all out for them,
2) Package proof the way decision-makers process it
- Attach transcripts and cite page:line.
- Add short exhibits: orders, docket screenshots, written communications.
- Provide precise dates/names and a tight timeline (1 page).
The report underscores how transcript handling affects the stats; don’t let your evidence get lost in that definitional crack and leave emotion at the door.
3) Reduce “noise” that sinks complaints
- Don’t ask the JTC to redo a ruling; that’s an appeal. Don’t even complain about it, because no matter how valid, it will be used as a scapegoat to close your complaint.
- Keep it to one judge, one pattern, one rule per section.
- Strip out speculation; stick to quotable facts and cites. Most grievances fail because they read like appeals or rants. The data show category fit matters.
4) Level up the messenger (if you can)
Complaints initiated by attorneys or officials have better odds of escalation. If possible, have a lawyer, bar leader, or institutional partner file or co-sign a complaint you’ve drafted with evidence.
5) Ask for the right next step
Close with a specific request:
“Please docket this for full investigation on the grounds of ex parte communication and conflict of interest, supported by Exhibits A–D and Transcript cites [x:y–z].”
That mirrors how the JTC tracks decisions and reduces ambiguity in how your file is coded. Speaking their language is how we win.
Why This Still Feels So Hard (and What to Watch)
- Negotiated exits (resign/retire during investigation) can erase a public outcome and skew public-vs-private stats—one reason Phase II added the “likely public outcome” lens. Keep an eye on whether departures are being used to duck public discipline.
- Criminal-case complaints are less likely to escalate likely because the JTC assumes (sometimes wrongfully) that it’s about case outcome rather than actual misconduct; domestic-relations and non-case-tethered issues move more. Frame your allegations around conduct not case outcome.
- Transparency fixes matter: consistent definitions, better documentation of why transcript-only approvals are used, and clearer public reporting would improve trust; whether JTC embraces it, we’ll have to wait and see.
Fast Checklist For Complaints
Copy and paste this to make your complaint process easier:
- Header: Judge, court, docket(s), dates.
- Allegation headings (JTC-friendly): Ex Parte, Conflict, Delay/Neglect, Demeanor.
- Proof pack: transcript cites; exhibits A–D; timeline.
- Rule anchor: Cite Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct canons tied to each act.
- Ask: “Open full investigation” + the specific category.
- Messenger: Attorney or institutional co-filing where possible.
The Bottom Line
The numbers confirm what court-watchers have lived for years: it’s ridiculously hard to hold a judge to account, and it’s even harder for Black judges to avoid escalation and public outcomes once a case is rolling.
But the same data shows us how to work smarter: file in the categories that trigger investigations, package transcripts and exhibits cleanly, and when possible, elevate the messenger. That’s how we force sunlight into a system built to work behind closed doors.
🖤 Love what we do? Support Clutch.
