Court watchers are, simply put, the justice system’s early warning system. They are in the room when things start to drift. They see firsthand the pauses that are too long. The rulings that do not line up with what was just argued. A judge’s sudden anger. The missed details or circular logic playing out. The moments where the process itself begins to look, to be frank, jacked up.
Most of the time, those moments get written off as personality, stress, or a bad day. “The Judge is just like that,” people say. But in safety-sensitive systems, those are exactly the signals that should be noticed and addressed, preferably sooner rather than later.
Cognitive impairment in professional settings almost never starts with obvious memory loss. It starts with changes in attention, judgment, impulse control, and task tracking. Courts are one of the worst places to pretend that does not matter.
Here is how to spot it, how to document it, where it can be reported under the current system, and how the proposed Fit-Bench Act would change everything.
What impairment looks like in a courtroom
Please note that these are not medical diagnoses; these are performance signals that you are watching out for.
In Judges
Watch for:
- Losing the thread of the hearing and drifting into unrelated tangents
- Confusing parties, charges, or timelines
- Misstating case law or naming the wrong precedent
- Repeated guideline miscalculations
- Emotional outbursts, sarcasm, or personal attacks
- Statements that replace legal reasoning with philosophy, religion, or personal grievance
- Ignoring appellate instructions or statutory standards
In Prosecutors and Attorneys
Watch for:
- Missed filings or deadlines
- Confusion about the record or discovery
- Forgetting prior rulings or plea terms
- Rambling or off-topic arguments
- Volatile or inappropriate courtroom behavior
- Repeated procedural errors
These are not personality traits. They are signs of loss of cognitive and executive stability in a job that depends on it.
What Court Watchers Should Write Down
If you see something concerning, document it the way an investigator would.
Write down:
- Date, time, courtroom, and case number
- Exact words used when possible
- What the judge or lawyer did that was wrong or off-task
- How it affected the hearing
- Whether anyone objected or tried to correct it
- What the ruling or outcome was
Do not describe feelings. Describe events.
Good notes look like:
“Judge stated People v Lockwood instead of People v Lockridge when explaining sentencing standard. Defense corrected. Judge dismissed correction and continued with incorrect standard.”
That is evidence, and it can also be verified through courtroom video and transcript. Facts, as always, win the day.
Where You Can Report Concerns Right Now
The current system is fragmented and reactive.
Judges
Concerns about judges go to the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission. They investigate misconduct and incapacity, but only after complaints are filed and sadly, often only after serious harm has already occurred.
Lawyers and Prosecutors
Concerns about attorneys go to the State Bar of Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. They can investigate ethical violations and place lawyers on disability inactive status if impairment is proven.
The problem that you’ll run into however, is that both systems depend on:
- formal complaints
- adversarial investigations
- and late-stage breakdown
They are built for discipline, not early detection.
Why This Leaves the Public Unprotected
Right now, the system waits for one of three things:
- a scandal
- a lawsuit
- or a total collapse
By the time that happens, dozens or hundreds of cases may already be affected.
Unfortunately, colleagues often stay silent because reporting someone feels like destroying their career. Litigants rarely have the power or information to complain, and often are not taken seriously. Court watchers see what is happening, but there is no neutral place to put the data.
That is how impairment becomes invisible until it is undeniable.
How the Fit-Bench Act Would Be Different
The Fit-Bench Act changes the system from complaint-driven to signal-driven.
Under Fit-Bench:
- Courtroom behavior, legal accuracy, procedural stability, and appellate compliance become measured indicators.
- When patterns cross defined thresholds, a confidential fitness review is triggered automatically.
That means:
- No one has to accuse
- No one has to go public
- No one has to wait for disaster
Court watcher observations would become part of a data stream, not a one-off complaint. Instead of asking “Who do I report this to,” the system would already be watching for it.
Why this Protects Everyone
Fit-Bench protects:
- litigants from unpredictable or broken process
- court staff from unsafe or volatile environments
- judges and lawyers from being forced to work through decline until humiliation or collapse
It replaces gossip with evidence and silence with structure.
Court watchers already see the truth first. Fit-Bench gives the system a way to hear you.
