|
No. 136880
| In the Matter of |
|
|
HON. WILLIAM C. HULTGREN |
|
Philip J. Thomas |
Judge, 19th District Court |
|
|
| |
|
|
| (Before the Judicial Tenure Comm) |
|
Paul J. Fischer |
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Honorable William C. Hultgren's Petition and Brief>>
Honorable William C. Hultgren's Reply Brief>>
Judicial Tenure Commission's Brief in Support of Decision and Recommendation>>
Background
The Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) filed a formal complaint against Judge William C. Hultgren of the 19th District Court, asserting that he committed judicial misconduct. The complaint arose from a meeting, arranged by a mutual acquaintance, that Judge Hultgren had with Hussein Dabaja and two other men in the fall of 2006. At that meeting, Dabaja stated through an interpreter that he was a defendant in a debt collection case pending in the 19th District, but asserted that a different person with the same name had incurred the debt. To prove his claim, Dabaja showed the judge his passport and social security number. The court docketing system showed that the case had been assigned to another judge and that a default judgment had been entered against Dabaja. Judge Hultgren first attempted to call the attorney pursuing the claim against Dabaja, then sent a follow-up letter to the lawyer in which the judge described Dabaja’s claims and asked the attorney to “look into the matter and take whatever action is appropriate.” When Judge Hultgren’s involvement came to the attention of the judge presiding over the collection matter, he asked Judge Hultgren to explain his actions. Judge Hultgren provided a written response in which he said that his actions were “an isolated good faith by a judge to request a lawyer in a credit card collection mill to take a second look at objective facts …” In its complaint, the JTC alleges that Judge Hultgren committed misconduct in office and acted in a manner that was clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice. The JTC also alleges that Judge Hultgren violated several canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. After a two-day hearing, a special master concluded that Judge Hultgren committed the acts alleged by the JTC, but that while Judge Hultgren used “poor judgment” at times, he did not commit judicial misconduct. In a written opinion, the JTC accepted the master’s factual findings, but concluded that Judge Hultgren did commit judicial misconduct. The JTC majority recommended that, based on the nature of the misconduct, Judge Hultgren receive a public censure and be suspended without pay for 60 days. The dissenters concurred in the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and public censure, but recommended that Judge Hultgren be suspended without pay for one year. Judge Hultgren seeks review of the JTC’s decision and recommendation in the Michigan Supreme Court.
Top of Page
|
