Majority of Michigan Supreme Court Justices Get Low Ratings In Watchdog Group's Scorecard

NORTHVILLE, Mich., May 21, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch (MiLAW) today released the results of an in-depth evaluation of Michigan's Supreme Court. Independent researchers commissioned by MiLAW found that the majority of Michigan's seven high court justices have records that are unfavorable to job creation and the long-term prosperity of Michigan's families.

"This study is part of MiLAW's ongoing effort to increase public awareness of how excessive litigation affects Michigan families, job providers and our communities," said MiLAW president Robert Dorigo Jones. "A recent Harris Poll revealed that Michigan's legal liability system has sunk to the bottom half of the rankings in a nationwide survey taken to determine which states have a fair and reasonable liability system, so we thought it was time for a thorough review of the top court in the state."

The Michigan Judicial Evaluation rates the supreme court justices over a five-year period on six areas of law: employment, insurance, medical malpractice, product liability, workers compensation and other liability. The scores range from 0 to 100, and a high score indicates that a justice's decisions tended to limit the spread of liability and benefit job creation.

Only two justices scored above 50. Four scored below that figure, while Justice Megan Cavanagh, who is the most recent justice to join the court, did not have an opportunity to participate in enough cases to be evaluated, although her score is trending very low. The scores below 50 belong to Richard Bernstein (28), Elizabeth Clement (29), Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormick (33) and David Viviano (37). The scores above 50 belong to Brian Zahra (72) and Stephen Markman (78). Markman must retire when his term expires at the end of this year because of constitutional age limits for justices.

"To produce the most objective ratings possible, strict criteria were set for how the project would be completed," said Dorigo Jones. "We started by making it totally non-partisan. Then we hired the Judicial Evaluation Institute, an independent group of attorneys who have done these types of evaluations all across America and who have an excellent reputation for fairness."

"To minimize subjective interpretation, cases were included only if they involved a difference of opinion between the justices, if they overturned a lower court ruling, or if the Court was asked to rule on a case of first impression. In all of those instances, current law is either open to debate or formal legal reasoning alone does not dictate outcomes, so the judges are therefore 'making law or policy'."

"Traditionally, many observers tend to look at the court in partisan terms because all justices are either appointed by a Republican or Democrat governor or nominated by one of those parties," added Dorigo Jones. "Looking at it that way, the Court has a 4-3 composition with Republicans holding the majority. However, that is very misleading because two of the Republicans score low in this evaluation. So, on important cases which involve auto accidents, employment disputes, and other injuries, the Court is really split 5-2 with the majority favoring expanding liability and making it easier to sue. With a tidal wave of liability lawsuits now being filed over COVID-19 issues, their record would indicate the Michigan Supreme Court is going to be creating all kinds of new policy much to the delight of plaintiff attorneys and to the detriment of Michigan job creators."

"This project gives the people of Michigan reliable and meaningful information about our state's top judges since legal ethics often prevent judges from declaring how they stand on a particular issue," concluded Dorigo Jones. "Even though this study is the most comprehensive evaluation of the Michigan Supreme Court that we are aware of, it is user-friendly because it summarizes the information into concise, easy-to-understand scores for each member of the high court."

Based in Northville, Michigan, Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch is a non-partisan consumer watchdog working to increase public awareness of all the ways consumers, job providers, educators, health care providers, first responders, charities and communities are burdened by the damaging effects of runaway litigation. For more information about the judicial evaluation and other MiLAW projects, visit www.LawsuitFairness.org. Contact: Bob Dorigo Jones, president, MiLAW, 734-891-6022, [email protected].

SOURCE Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch