By ELIZABETH FERSZT
Contributing Writer
4th Circuit Court Judge, Thomas Wilson, is now formally under judicial tenure review by the Judicial Tenure Commission of the State of Michigan. On Sept. 11, the JTC filed a formal complaint against Wilson, including eight counts of alleged misconduct in the courtroom, on the bench, in his chambers, and/or in the courthouse working environment, going back to 2007 when he was first seated as a judge.
These counts include intoxication and/or drinking while on the job; and sexual harassment of some female employees, attorneys, and/or fellow judges.
Judge Wilson “provided comments under oath” to the JTC on Jan. 22, and on April 15, in which he admitted to the use of alcohol allegations during the work day, on the bench, and/or in the courthouse (including elevators), and most of the sexual harassment counts. The report states that Wilson abused alcohol during the period of 2013-2021.
Wilson stated that “he would, at times, leave the courthouse, consume alcohol at home, and return to the courthouse” and that “at times [he] appeared in public after consuming enough alcohol that others observed him smelling of alcohol, looking disheveled, or appearing flushed” according to the FC 110 report.
For Count II, “Failure to Obtain Substance Abuse Assessment” – Wilson was required to “obtain alcohol assessment by the State Bar of Michigan Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program” in May 2019; however, he did not seek out nor obtain that assessment.
Count III involves sexual harassment, in which Wilson is alleged to have sexually harassed several female employees that he worked with [in the courthouse] between 2016 and 2018. The harassment consisted of Wilson sharing, with two different female judges in the courthouse, explicit details of his sexual exploits and descriptions of his sexual organ. He also allegedly made comments about women’s breasts and about one female judge whom he had been “wanting [to have sexual intercourse with] for a long time,” according to the report.
He also targeted female attorneys and prosecuting attorneys. He yelled at one in the court parking lot, “’Nice legs!’” Again, according to the FC 110 report.
Count IV, Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest, is about Wilson’s alleged relationships with at least seven local attorneys with whom he shared economic or financial ties. For example, “Several local attorneys who appeared before [Wilson] were tenants in a building located at 1339 Horton Road, Jackson, Michigan, that [he] owned from January 2007 through January 2022” including attorneys Ivan Brown, Brian Hilderley, and Christopher Hurlburt. The report states, “The landlord-tenant relationships with Mr. Brown, Mr. Hilderley, and Mr. Hurlburt were financial relationships that could have been grounds for respondent’s disqualification under MCR 2.003 in cases in which the attorneys appeared before him.”
Wilson admitted to the JTC that he should have disclosed these conflicts. He also “co-owned investment property with two attorneys: a car wash with Ivan Brown (2007-2017) and residential properties with Michael Dungan (2007-2016)” – these attorneys also appeared before the judge in court to argue other cases; the report states that this was a conflict.
There were also conflicts with attorney-client relationships, in which several attorneys who regularly appeared before Wilson in court were also hired to represent either Wilson, his children, or other relatives. For example, criminal defense attorney George Lyons was hired in June-July 2019 to represent a relative in two 12th District Court marine safety cases, “in which the relative was charged with refusal to take a preliminary breath test and failure to display registration of a water vehicle,” according to the report.
Additionally, attorney Ronald Fabian represented Wilson in his divorce from his wife Julie Wilson, a case filed in 2013 and heard in 2014-2015. Fabian also represented Wilson to the SCAO and State Bar in regard to their mandate that Wilson undergo alcohol assessment. Wilson did not disclose that Fabian was handling these personal cases for him, while Fabian continued to represent other clients in Wilson’s circuit court from 2014-2020.
Count V, Acceptance of Prohibited Gifts (Legal Services) – involves Wilson allegedly not paying attorneys for their legal services: “During the course of the attorneys’ representation of respondent [Wilson] and his children (as arranged by respondent) as described in the preceding count, in some of the cases respondent did not compensate the attorneys for their services.” This is strictly prohibited by the canons of conduct in which a “judge or a family member residing in the same household [is prohibited] from accepting a gift or favor if the donor is a person whose interests may have come or are likely to come before the judge.”
Count VI involves “Interference in case proceedings” – in particular, in one criminal case Wilson personally called 911 to alert police that a defendant, Phillip Dawson, whom he had placed under a $5,000 bond with a tether, was likely about to violate the terms of the tether, but only because Wilson “had instructed Dawson to go to the prohibited location to pick up his medication. [But that] Dawson did not understand how the monitoring process worked, [and] there was no need to arrest Dawson. [And] he had the situation ‘all taken care of.’”
This was a direct interference with an active case, according to the JTC. Telling Dawson to pick up the prescription was violating a pending no-contact order; thus, Wilson “exceeded his authority as a judge.”
Another interference occurred with Probate and Civil Court Judge Diane Rappleye, in which Wilson was at the time (2016) the Chief Judge in the 4th Circuit. Wilson allegedly approached Judge Rappleye, ex parte, to ask her to sign a hand-written, modified version of his court ordered Child Support balance of $2,030, to zero (0). Judge Wilson had actually crossed out the owed amount and placed the zero in the paperwork, asking Judge Rappleye to sign off as a professional courtesy, even though it was a clear conflict of interest, according to the report.
Another interference occurred when Judge Wilson attempted to get a juvenile MIP case in Washtenaw County (2017) involving his relative transferred back to Jackson County. Wilson put pressure on both then Assistant Prosecutor Katie Rezmierski and then Chief Prosecutor Jerard Jarszynka, stating “’what goes around, comes around.’”
“After respondent [Wilson] made that statement, Ms. Rezmierski attempted again to explain the appearance of impropriety to him if the case was prosecuted in Jackson County. Respondent replied that he would not normally have a problem with the decision to transfer the case, but Mr. Jarzynka had recently dismissed three ‘minor in possession’ tickets for students at Lumen Christi High School,” according to the report.
As far as Count VII: Delay in Decisions; and Count VIII: Obstructing reporting of delay to SCAO – these allegations seem very granular compared to the explosive counts of alcohol abuse and sexual harassment on the job. Yet, these are also substantive and go toward the administration of justice and what lawyers and judges are supposed to do professionally.
Indeed, other more technical charges included several breaches of his judicial duties in terms of SCAO and MCR (Michigan Court Rules) and ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. For example, in Count VIII, “Obstructing the Reporting of Delay to the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO)” when he was early on in his job in the 4th Circuit in 2007, Judge Wilson apparently took several cases ‘under advisement’ – meaning he did not rule from the bench at the close of a case.
The FC 110 Report states “MCR 8.107(B) requires judges to give SCAO quarterly statements ‘providing information of all [civil] matters pending during the reporting period that were not decided within 56 days from submission.” Wilson failed to report at least four (4) delayed cases past the 56-day rule by advising his staff to not use the correct JIS (Judicial Information System) filing code, so the cases would not be flagged as late or delayed decisions.
Moreover, Wilson [Respondent], “stated under oath on Jan. 22 that the reason he directed his staff not to use the code when he took matters under advisement was so he ‘would have time to get the stuff done without it showing up as being late.’” These allegations reflect violations of canons of conduct, in that any judge at any level is obligated to “diligently discharge administrative responsibilities and to direct staff to observe high standards of diligence.”
Judge Wilson has 14 days after service of the complaint (FC 110) (Sept. 11) to respond. According to the JTC, “Such answer must contain a full and fair disclosure of all facts and circumstances pertaining to the allegations. Willful concealment, misrepresentation, or failure to file an answer and disclosure are additional grounds for disciplinary action.”
The JTC has several options as to disciplining the judge if it finds cause, including a written reprimand, censure, suspension with or without pay, or removal from office.
