Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearing

Related Cases

In re Marietta, 223 Kan. 11, 569 P.2d 921
View Case »
Tallon v. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Dept., 86 A.D.2d 897, 447 N.Y.S.2d 50
View Case »
In re Fraser, 83 Wash.2d 884, 523 P.2d 921
View Case »
People v. Kenelly, 648 P.2d 1065
View Case »
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 105 S.Ct. 1272, 84 L.Ed.2d 205, 53 USLW 4238
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michelson, 225 Wis.2d 221, 591 N.W.2d 843

Facts

Judge Robert Michelson, after hearing a case involving a woman unable to pay a fine due to caring for her ill daughter, made inappropriate comments about the daughter's character. He expressed anger and stated that the daughter should not have had children she could not support. The judge's remarks were reported by the woman, leading to a letter of apology from him that further revealed his personal biases. The judicial conduct panel found that his comments constituted judicial misconduct.

Based on facts to which Judge Michelson and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission stipulated in this proceeding, the panel concluded that Judge Michelson's intemperate, discourteous and undignified comments from the bench concerning the daughter of a woman who was appearing before him constituted a wilful violation of the provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Issue

Did Judge Michelson's comments from the bench constitute judicial misconduct under the Code of Judicial Conduct?

Did Judge Michelson's comments from the bench constitute judicial misconduct under the Code of Judicial Conduct?

Rule

Judges are required to be patient, dignified, and courteous to all litigants and must perform their duties without bias or prejudice, as outlined in SCR 60.04(1)(d) and SCR 60.04(1)(e).

A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.

Analysis

The court applied the rules of judicial conduct to Judge Michelson's comments, determining that his remarks were not only intemperate but also demonstrated a clear bias against the socioeconomic status of the litigant's family. The panel noted that the judge's comments were wholly inappropriate and caused significant damage to the integrity of the judicial system.

The panel concluded that Judge Michelson's comments from the bench about the woman's daughter were intemperate, discourteous and undignified and that those comments and the statements in his letter of apology manifested a bias based on a person's socioeconomic status.

Conclusion

The court concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate discipline for Judge Michelson's misconduct, emphasizing the need for judges to maintain appropriate judicial demeanor.

We determine that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for Judge Michelson's judicial misconduct.

Who won?

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the panel's findings and recommended discipline due to the judge's clear violations of judicial conduct standards.

The panel concluded that Judge Michelson engaged in judicial misconduct, defined in Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a) to include a wilful violation of a rule of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

You must be