Sanctions for Filing Frivolous Motion to Disqualify

H.Sanctions for Filing Frivolous Motion to Disqualify

“Sanctions for the filing of a frivolous motion to disqualify must be evaluated under [MCR 1.109 ¹.]” Home-Owners Ins Co v Andriacchi, 320 Mich App 52, 76 n 6 (2017). “If the trial court finds a violation of [MCR 1.109], it must ‘impose . . . an appropriate sanction.’” Home-Owners Ins Co, 320 Mich App at 79, quoting MCR 1.109(E)(6).² (vacating in part and remanding for “[t]he trial court [to] decide [the plaintiff’s] motion for sanctions, articulating on the record or in a written opinion the basis of its ruling,” where “the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to award sanctions” after finding the plaintiff’s “motion to disqualify the trial judge was frivolous under . . . [MCR 1.109]”).

Part II: Fact-Specific Examples (Ethics Opinions and Caselaw)

Under this Part, the following sections contain fact-specific discussions.

•Section I, Ethics Opinions: Disqualification Required

•Section J, Ethics Opinions: Disqualification Not Necessarily Required

•Section K, Caselaw: Disqualification Required

•Section L, Caselaw: Disqualification Not Necessarily Required

Alternatively, fact summaries are included in the table below.³ Simply click on the blue text to read more about the situation described

Factual Scenario	Was Disqualification Required Under Facts Presented?
Financial Interest in Case
Judge was also the mayor and was indirectly compensated from fines collected by court.	Yes
MSC Justice had an economic interest in the matter.	Yes
Judge’s Statements or Actions During Case at Hand
Judge made negative comments about a party’s case.	No
Judge found a party in contempt.	No
Certain judicial rulings.	No
Judge referred to a party by a nickname and suggested that the party had no defense.	No
Judge terminated a party’s parental rights.	No
Personal Feelings About Attorney or Party
Lawyer was being hostile toward the judge.	No
Judge was a target of personal abuse or criticism from a party to the case.	Yes
Personal Relationship With Attorney, Judicial Officer, Party, or Witness
Party or attorney was cohabiting with the judge.	Yes
Lawyer and his or her spouse both served as judicial officers.	Yes
Employer of the judge’s spouse appeared before the judge as a witness.	No
Judge and the lawyer were opposing parties in the past.	No
Judge was “personally acquainted” with an advocate or party.	No
Judge being sued in an unrelated matter, and current matter involves the lawyer for the judge or the judge’s opponent.	No
Judge sued after present matter filed.	No
MSC Justice was related to an attorney in the matter.	Yes
MSC Justice had personal relationship with a party.	Yes
Judge lost civil rights suit brought by litigant.	Yes
Prior Involvement in Case
Judge was the former prosecutor in the case.	Yes
Judge reviewed on appeal a case the judge had formerly presided over.	Yes
Professional Relationship With Attorney, Judicial Officer, Party, or Witness
Lawyer appearing before the judge also represented the judge or the judge’s former law firm in pending litigation.	Yes
Police officer who was a probation officer with the judge’s court was also a witness in the case.	No
Judge from the same court was a witness in the case.	No
Chief judge as the “employer” of all individuals working for the court.	No
Judge’s appointee appeared before the judge as an advocate.	No
Judge served on the Attorney Discipline Committee, and lawyer who faced the Committee appeared in front of the judge.	No
Plaintiff’s firm hired to renovate courthouse.	No
Party previously fundraised for the judge.	No

³These factual scenarios are intended to provide examples of what actually occurred in each situation and the disqualification outcome; each disqualification situation is unique, and disqualification may or may not be required depending on the facts in each individual case.