In re Honorable Steven R. Servaas, Judge, 63rd District Court, 484 Mich. 634

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the Judicial Tenure Commission’s recommendation to remove Judge Steven R. Servaas from office based on an alleged change of domicile, related statutory violations, and sexually inappropriate comments and drawings involving court employees. The lead opinion held that whether the judge had vacated his office had to be determined initially in a quo warranto action brought by the Attorney General in the Court of Appeals, and therefore rejected that portion of the disciplinary recommendation. The Court imposed public censure for the inappropriate conduct, while separate opinions disagreed regarding the role of quo warranto and the appropriate sanction.

Holdings

1. A quo warranto action brought by the Attorney General in the Michigan Court of Appeals is the exclusive proceeding for the initial determination whether a judge has vacated or unlawfully holds judicial office.
2. The JTC's finding that respondent vacated his office was null and void because the JTC lacked authority to decide the quo warranto issue in the disciplinary proceeding.
3. Respondent's sexually inappropriate conduct warranted public censure but did not rise to the level of blatant judicial misconduct requiring removal from office.
4. The Supreme Court reviews JTC findings and recommendations de novo, and judicial disciplinary allegations must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Judicial Tenure Commission or the Michigan Supreme Court could determine in the first instance, in a judicial-discipline proceeding, whether respondent had vacated or unlawfully held his judicial office by changing his domicile.
2. Whether the JTC's vacation-of-office finding was valid when the issue had not first been presented in a quo warranto action brought by the Attorney General in the Court of Appeals.
3. Whether respondent's sexually inappropriate drawings and comment constituted judicial misconduct warranting removal or another sanction.
4. What standard of review and burden of proof govern review of JTC findings and recommendations.

Disposition

other