A Third Year For Former Judge McCree
A two-year suspension of a tri-county panel has been increased to three years by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board
Following a finding of judicial misconduct, the Michigan Supreme Court removed Judge Wade H. McCree from office and ordered him conditionally suspended from the bench for six years beginning January 1,2015. In re McCree, 495 Mich 51; 845 NW2d 458 (2014). Based on the findings ofthe Court and the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC), the Grievance Administrator filed a three-count formal complaint alleging attorney misconduct pursuant to MCR 9 .116(B). Following hearings on misconduct and discipline, Tri-County Hearing Panel #2 imposed an order of discipline suspending respondent’s license to practice law for two years. The Grievance Administrator petitioned for review, arguing that the panel erred by imposing insufficient discipline. Respondent filed a cross-petition asserting that the panel erred in imposing a suspension of greater than 90 days, that any suspension should have a retroactive effective date in light of respondent’s interim suspension and removal from the bench, and that the panel erred in concluding that it was bound by the doctrine of collateral estoppel to adopt the findings of the Michigan Supreme Court. For the reasons discussed below, we increase the discipline imposed from a two-year suspension to a three year suspension.
From the Michigan Supreme Court opinion in the judicial misconduct case
The evidence establishes that respondent (a) had a sexual relationship with a complaining witness in a case pending before him without recusing himself for several months, (b) engaged in numerous ex parte communications with her concerning the case, as well as concerning another case in which one of her relatives was a party, (c) violated various policies of the courthouse by permitting his mistress to enter the facility through an employee entrance without going through security, allowing her to remain alone in his chambers while he was on the bench, arranging for her to park her vehicle in an area reserved for judges, and sneaking her cell phone into the courthouse for her, (d) transmitted numerous text messages to her while he was on the bench that contained inappropriate and derogatory references to defendants, litigants, and witnesses appearing before him, (e) lied about when and why he finally did recuse himself from the case in which his mistress was the complaining witness, (f) sought to use the prosecuting attorney’s office as leverage against his then ex-mistress by concocting charges of stalking and extortion against her, and (g) lied under oath during the JTC proceedings. [In re McCree at 55-56.]
The Board
Although there is no evidence that respondent corruptly affected the outcome of a case, there is ample evidence that he, in the words of the panel, “disregarded the duty of recusal … or deliberately may have kept the case to curry favor with Ms. Mott.” We agree with the panel that a lengthy suspension is more appropriate in this case than disbarment, but, in light of the totality of respondent’s conduct, including the “brazen disregard of his ethical duties,” to quote the Colorado Court, we believe that a three-year suspension should be imposed for his misconduct as a public official and his deceptive conduct.
One of my great thrills in life was arguing a case in the U.S. Supreme Court opposed by Solicitor General Wade McCree. (Mike Frisch)