COMMITTEES UPDATE

BY KATE WEAVER (OAKLAND)

Ethics Committee, Referee Ilyssa Cimmino (Oakland)- We spent a lot of time at our last meeting discussing the Proposed Amendment of Canon 3, “A Judge should perform the duties of office impartially and diligently” whereby the proposed addition talks about requiring Judges to make “reasonable efforts…to facilitate the ability of all litigants, including self-represented litigants to be fairly heard” and what that really means in day-to-day life for Judges/Referees.  The ethics committee finds the proposed amendment to be pretty vague and so a subcommittee has been created to present a letter to the Board of Commissioners so that we can provide our comments prior to the vote.

Juvenile Justice Partnership Committee, Referee Lisa Harris and Referee Holly Spoelman (Muskegon) – update from Referee Spoelman -     We are going to continue providing JJ trainings into 2025.  The SCAO newsletter formerly known as “Monthly Newsletter” is now going to be known as “Juvenile Court Connection Monthly Newsletter”.  The newsletter will contain Juvenile updates, resources, training opportunities and funding opportunities. The CWJJS website contains the recordings of previous Juvenile Justice webinars. The group reviewed the evaluation results from the last two trainings that were held in 2024.  Both trainings were well received and considered beneficial by the attendees.  The group is continuing to identify and prioritize trainings for 2025. We will be meeting quarterly. Our next meeting is in April 2025.

MI Weighted Caseload Study, Referee Erin Magley (Ottawa) and Referee Kelly Ward (Van Buren) – update from Referee Magley - Referees had a very high participation rate in the time-study of 96% (53 out of 55) which was the best of all judicial officers. 

The committee went over any surprising numbers, particularly by looking at discrepancies between the 2019 case weights and the recent results.  A lot of focus was on the probate side and the ways the numbers dropped significantly – shockingly dropped – between 2019 and 2024 for probate cases. Discussion was spent brainstorming why that might be as it appears probate judges are spending significantly less time on almost every type of probate case, especially will, estates, and their general civil dockets.  Interestingly, on the circuit court side “other family” which is name change, juvenile guardianship, emancipation, etc also went shockingly down in average minutes per case and these are also often matters handled by the probate judges.  One note was that the case-filings in probate matters increased quite a bit in small counties, which may mean the judges have to spend less time per case in order to get through more cases, but that didn’t seem to explain everything.

In contrast, the matters the Referees tend to handle (and also a lot of probate judges are assigned to) saw an increase in the number of minutes spent per case, across the board family cases -- DM, non-divorce domestic (DP, DS, etc), juvenile and NA -- all saw upwards of 25% increase in the amount of time spent, on average, per case. Non-divorce domestic went up from 142 min. per case to 224 min. per case as the biggest jump. These numbers are on the table on p. 4 of 10.  Pages 7 and 8 reflect the number of minutes and percent of time by task -- as expected, the bulk of the time in our family cases (DM, DP, DS, DL, and NA) is post-dispo.  Almost every other case type except for specialty court programs saw the amount of time per case go down. The fact that the time per case went up across the family cases will indicate that case weights will be higher for those filings and would indicate more family judges are needed to handle those case types, resulting in reassignment of judges or need for additional seats, especially in counties where filings are up in family cases. However, we aren’t at that point yet, these case weights are just initial and are not final until more analysis is done.
The next step is to form some panel discussions regarding the results and the case weights that should be assigned. SCAO asked that these panels be made up of a broad cross-section (small/big counties) and not be members of the committee. Anyone interested in serving on the panel to represent referees – the discussion would center around determining whether the case weights that were based on the averages are accurate and realistic. See attachments.

Commission on Wellness in the Law, Referee Linda Harrison (Macomb) reports the Commission on Wellness in the Law continues to meet to address the personal and professional health of law students, legal professionals, lawyers and Jurists.  The Commission has been divided into work groups (I am in the Prevention and Promotion work group.).   We have developed the following mission statement: The Michigan Commission for Well-Being in the Law Prevention and Promotion workgroup is committed to fostering a supportive and resilient legal community by providing comprehensive education and resources to mitigate the stressors associated with the legal profession. Through targeted initiatives, we aim to: 

• Educate law students, practitioners, and judges on the common challenges faced throughout their legal journeys. 
• Identify and address pressure points and susceptible intervals that can contribute to stress and burnout. 
• Promote healthy coping skills and strategies to enhance well-being and resilience. 
• Normalize the experience of stress within the legal community, fostering a culture of understanding and support. 

By empowering individuals with knowledge and tools, we strive to create a more sustainable and fulfilling legal profession.  
​
Over the past quarter, workshops have begun through MJI to bring the secondary trauma and professional burnout to the forefront of the conversation. As the Commission continues to meet, we will be expanding the audience and opportunities to address wellness. The next meeting of the full Commission will be scheduled within this quarter.