Judicial Disqualification in Michigan
Part II: Fact-Specific Examples (Ethics Opinions and Caselaw)
Part I: Procedure1
All parties to a dispute have the right to due process of law in order to resolve the dispute, and due process of law requires that the parties be given a hearing before an unbiased and impartial decisionmaker as part of the resolution process. Withrow v Larkin, 421 US 35, 46 (1975); In re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136 (1955); Tumey v Ohio, 273 US 510, 523 (1927). All states, including Michigan, have developed rules and ethical standards to determine whether disqualification is proper in situations where a decisionmaker’s impartiality may be an issue. See MCR 2.003 and the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct.
Judicial power was first described by the Michigan Supreme Court in 1859 as “the power to hear and determine controversies between adverse parties, and questions in litigation.” Daniels v People, 6 Mich 380, 388 (1859). “The fundamental purpose in resolving such controversies is quite simple: the fair ascertainment of the truth.” In re Justin, 490 Mich 394, 414 (2012) “A trial judge is presumed to be impartial and the party who asserts partiality has a heavy burden of overcoming that presumption.” In re MKK, 286 Mich App 546, 566 (2009).