Twice in the last six weeks, Dearborn District Judge Mark Somers has been summoned to other judges' courtrooms to answer allegations that he fired court employees in violation of Michigan law.
Twice, Somers testified that he had done nothing wrong.
And twice, jurors -- 16 in all, sitting in two different civil trials -- unanimously concluded otherwise, awarding two former employees more than $1.1 million in damages.
With attorney fees and interest, Somers' liability will almost certainly exceed $2 million -- even if a third ex-employee comes up empty when her whistle-blower lawsuit against Somers goes to trial next year.
But Somers isn't sweating. He's still pulling down his $138,000 salary as chief judge of Dearborn's district court. The assistant state attorney general who has defended him in all three lawsuits never sends him a bill. And Dearborn taxpayers will likely bear the cost of any damages ultimately collected by the plaintiffs -- just as taxpayers and municipal insurers in Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, West Bloomfield and Southgate were left holding the bag when lawsuits against judges in their communities were settled in the plaintiffs' favor.
What is more galling is that none of those judges has ever been removed from office, suspended or even publicly reprimanded by any disciplinary body.
Jurors have found the judges' conduct -- and their credibility as witnesses in their own defense -- wanting. But neither the Judicial Tenure Commission nor the Attorney Grievance Commission -- the organizations responsible for policing the ethical conduct of judges and lawyers -- concedes that those judges have done anything unethical.
So much for holding the men and women who oversee Michigan's courts to a higher standard.
Detroit attorney Joel Sklar, whose client was awarded $734,000 in her lawsuit against Somers, marvels that judges who have violated the law in their own courthouses continue to sit in judgment of others.
"You wonder," Sklar muses, "whether they think their black robes make them invincible, or just invisible."
Witnesses testified that the judges had turned on Horton in solidarity with a newly elected colleague who suspected her -- erroneously, as it turned out -- of plotting to embarrass his wife. Jurors learned that, at one point, Bloomfield Township detectives had staked out the Capitol Grille to determine if Horton was accepting free drinks from lawyers with business before the court.
All three judges implicated in Horton's allegations testified under oath that they had done nothing wrong -- a fact the attorney defending the district court underlined in his closing argument.
"Let's think about all the people who have to be lying to make (the plaintiff's case) work," the defense lawyer, Mark Paxton, told the jury. "Judge (Diane) D'Agostini has to be lying. Judge (Kimberly) Small has to be lying. Judge (Marc) Barron has to be lying."
But it took jurors only a couple of hours to agree that Horton was the one telling the truth. West Bloomfield and six other municipalities who fund the Bloomfield Hills District Court vowed to appeal the jury's $3.1-million judgment, but quietly agreed to a seven-figure settlement on the condition that Horton's attorneys agree not to reveal its value.
Shemka charged in a lawsuit that she was fired just days after she alerted the State Court Administrator's Office that Kandrevas was funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars into a secret bank account he and another court employee controlled.
In a 2010 deposition arising from the clerk's whistle-blower suit against the court, Judge Kandrevas invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination 222 times. The court's insurer subsequently settled the lawsuit against him for $300,000.
The deputy, Julie Pucci, alleged that Somers unlawfully eliminated her position after learning that she was living with her fiance, Dearborn District Judge William Hultgren. Jurors awarded her $732,000, including $200,000 in punitive damages.
Pucci's federal court judgment came less than a month after a Wayne County Circuit Court jury awarded $463,000 to former probation officer Simone Calvas. Calvas testified that she had incurred the devout Somers' displeasure by associating with Pucci and by conceiving twins out of wedlock.
Dearborn city attorneys have taken the public position that the city, which was not a defendant in Pucci's lawsuit, is not liable for any damages awarded to her. But a multitude of legal authorities and precedents suggest otherwise.
Ryan answered by reminding me that the commission "has a number of weapons to deal with these situations," including private "letters of reprimand" and "letters of caution," and that voters should not conclude that the absence of any public disciplinary action means that he and his JTC colleagues have been looking the other way.
But why, I asked Ryan, should the JTC hesitate to make a public example of judges whose misconduct has been exposed in public trials?
"Those are the rules under which we operate," Ryan answered. "It was determined that confidentiality was critical for the protection of the judiciary and the public."
Begging your pardon, counselor, but all judges work for the public -- and no one is served when the JTC and the bar conspire to sweep illegal judicial conduct under the rug.
"There is," as Ryan observed, "a ballot box" at which voters dissatisfied with the performance of elected judges can take action to remove them from office.
But attorneys are notoriously (and understandably) reluctant to challenge any sitting judge. And the JTC and the bar betray their profession when they refuse to call out judges who violate the law.
I covered each of the trials I've described in this column; I saw what jurors saw, and I understand why those jurors decided they couldn't trust the defendant judges who testified before them.
But journalists shouldn't bear the burden of policing bad judges alone -- and taxpayers shouldn't be left holding the bag when juries occasionally hold one of them accountable.
Contact Brian Dickerson: 313-222-6584 or bdickerson@freepress.com
Twice, Somers testified that he had done nothing wrong.
And twice, jurors -- 16 in all, sitting in two different civil trials -- unanimously concluded otherwise, awarding two former employees more than $1.1 million in damages.
With attorney fees and interest, Somers' liability will almost certainly exceed $2 million -- even if a third ex-employee comes up empty when her whistle-blower lawsuit against Somers goes to trial next year.
But Somers isn't sweating. He's still pulling down his $138,000 salary as chief judge of Dearborn's district court. The assistant state attorney general who has defended him in all three lawsuits never sends him a bill. And Dearborn taxpayers will likely bear the cost of any damages ultimately collected by the plaintiffs -- just as taxpayers and municipal insurers in Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, West Bloomfield and Southgate were left holding the bag when lawsuits against judges in their communities were settled in the plaintiffs' favor.
What is more galling is that none of those judges has ever been removed from office, suspended or even publicly reprimanded by any disciplinary body.
Jurors have found the judges' conduct -- and their credibility as witnesses in their own defense -- wanting. But neither the Judicial Tenure Commission nor the Attorney Grievance Commission -- the organizations responsible for policing the ethical conduct of judges and lawyers -- concedes that those judges have done anything unethical.
So much for holding the men and women who oversee Michigan's courts to a higher standard.
Detroit attorney Joel Sklar, whose client was awarded $734,000 in her lawsuit against Somers, marvels that judges who have violated the law in their own courthouses continue to sit in judgment of others.
"You wonder," Sklar muses, "whether they think their black robes make them invincible, or just invisible."
A lack of credibility
In 2006, a jury awarded $3.1 million in damages to Michelle Horton, a former Bloomfield Hills District Court employee of the year who complained that the court's sitting judges had colluded to fire her illegally.Witnesses testified that the judges had turned on Horton in solidarity with a newly elected colleague who suspected her -- erroneously, as it turned out -- of plotting to embarrass his wife. Jurors learned that, at one point, Bloomfield Township detectives had staked out the Capitol Grille to determine if Horton was accepting free drinks from lawyers with business before the court.
All three judges implicated in Horton's allegations testified under oath that they had done nothing wrong -- a fact the attorney defending the district court underlined in his closing argument.
"Let's think about all the people who have to be lying to make (the plaintiff's case) work," the defense lawyer, Mark Paxton, told the jury. "Judge (Diane) D'Agostini has to be lying. Judge (Kimberly) Small has to be lying. Judge (Marc) Barron has to be lying."
But it took jurors only a couple of hours to agree that Horton was the one telling the truth. West Bloomfield and six other municipalities who fund the Bloomfield Hills District Court vowed to appeal the jury's $3.1-million judgment, but quietly agreed to a seven-figure settlement on the condition that Horton's attorneys agree not to reveal its value.
Taking the Fifth
Jurors never got to hear Southgate District Judge James Kandrevas' response to allegations he fired his court clerk, Lori Shemka, after she blew the whistle on Kandrevas' unethical conduct.Shemka charged in a lawsuit that she was fired just days after she alerted the State Court Administrator's Office that Kandrevas was funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars into a secret bank account he and another court employee controlled.
In a 2010 deposition arising from the clerk's whistle-blower suit against the court, Judge Kandrevas invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination 222 times. The court's insurer subsequently settled the lawsuit against him for $300,000.
Answering to a higher authority?
The two juries that awarded more than $1.1 million to former Dearborn District Court employees heard testimony that Somers was a zealously religious man who questioned defendants about their church attendance and retaliated when a deputy court administrator complained that he was proselytizing from the bench.The deputy, Julie Pucci, alleged that Somers unlawfully eliminated her position after learning that she was living with her fiance, Dearborn District Judge William Hultgren. Jurors awarded her $732,000, including $200,000 in punitive damages.
Pucci's federal court judgment came less than a month after a Wayne County Circuit Court jury awarded $463,000 to former probation officer Simone Calvas. Calvas testified that she had incurred the devout Somers' displeasure by associating with Pucci and by conceiving twins out of wedlock.
Dearborn city attorneys have taken the public position that the city, which was not a defendant in Pucci's lawsuit, is not liable for any damages awarded to her. But a multitude of legal authorities and precedents suggest otherwise.
Discipline on the QT?
Late last week, I asked Tom Ryan, a former State Bar of Michigan president who currently serves as chairman of the Judicial Tenure Commission, why the JTC had taken no disciplinary action against any of the judges who jurors determined had violated the law.Ryan answered by reminding me that the commission "has a number of weapons to deal with these situations," including private "letters of reprimand" and "letters of caution," and that voters should not conclude that the absence of any public disciplinary action means that he and his JTC colleagues have been looking the other way.
But why, I asked Ryan, should the JTC hesitate to make a public example of judges whose misconduct has been exposed in public trials?
"Those are the rules under which we operate," Ryan answered. "It was determined that confidentiality was critical for the protection of the judiciary and the public."
Begging your pardon, counselor, but all judges work for the public -- and no one is served when the JTC and the bar conspire to sweep illegal judicial conduct under the rug.
"There is," as Ryan observed, "a ballot box" at which voters dissatisfied with the performance of elected judges can take action to remove them from office.
But attorneys are notoriously (and understandably) reluctant to challenge any sitting judge. And the JTC and the bar betray their profession when they refuse to call out judges who violate the law.
I covered each of the trials I've described in this column; I saw what jurors saw, and I understand why those jurors decided they couldn't trust the defendant judges who testified before them.
But journalists shouldn't bear the burden of policing bad judges alone -- and taxpayers shouldn't be left holding the bag when juries occasionally hold one of them accountable.
Contact Brian Dickerson: 313-222-6584 or bdickerson@freepress.com
No comments:
Post a Comment