To the Michigan Legislature, Michigan Supreme Court, and Judicial Tenure Commission:

Michigan probate judges exercise extraordinary power over people’s freedom, family relationships, medical care, homes, and life savings.

That power must be exercised according to the law—including Michigan’s Estates and Protected Individuals Code, known as EPIC—and accompanied by meaningful accountability.

When a judge deliberately disregards legal protections to benefit favored attorneys or professional fiduciaries, families deserve an independent investigation and enforceable consequences.

We call for two connected reforms: independent probate appointments and meaningful judicial accountability.

1. Take paid professional appointments out of judges’ hands.

Establish an independent, publicly accountable authority to select court-appointed probate attorneys, guardians ad litem, and professional fiduciaries.

Require transparent qualifications, conflict checks, workload limits, and fair assignment procedures, with written explanations for exceptions. Preserve individuals’ lawful nominations, statutory priorities, and suitable family appointments.

Judges should decide legal issues without controlling which professionals receive paid assignments.

2. Require independent scrutiny of fees and financial incentives.

Establish independent review of itemized bills and fiduciary accounts. Examine unnecessary litigation, duplicate charges, unsupported services, and financial incentives to prolong proceedings.

Require a fair process for challenging charges and recovering improper payments when legally warranted. Publish appointment and compensation data while protecting private information.

A vulnerable person’s estate must not become a source of unchecked income for court-appointed professionals.

3. Make compliance with EPIC demonstrable.

Require clear, reviewable findings showing how applicable legal requirements were satisfied—including notice, the opportunity to be heard, consideration of less restrictive alternatives, appointment priorities, and the scope and necessity of restrictions.

Require timely review of whether guardianships and conservatorships remain necessary and whether fiduciaries are fulfilling their duties.

4. Investigate deliberate disregard of the law and favoritism.

Require substantive review of credible evidence that a judge knowingly disregarded binding law or appellate mandates, concealed conflicts, favored professionals for improper reasons, retaliated against families, or persistently neglected judicial duties.

An incorrect ruling or appellate reversal alone does not establish misconduct. But allegations supported by evidence of deliberate abuse must not be brushed aside merely because they arose during a court case.

5. Impose consequences—including removal when warranted.

Require timely, fair disciplinary proceedings and sanctions proportionate to proven misconduct.

When corruption, serious abuse of judicial power, or persistent misconduct demonstrates that a judge is unfit to serve, pursue removal through Michigan’s constitutional process. Refer evidence of possible crimes to the appropriate investigative authorities.

6. Make the independent authority accountable, too.

Prohibit self-dealing and financial conflicts. Include meaningful representation from affected families, disability advocates, and independent experts. Require outside audits, public reporting, and accessible procedures for challenging appointments, fees, and agency conduct.

Replacing judicial favoritism with agency favoritism would solve nothing.

7. Hold public hearings and publish an action plan.

We request public hearings where affected families can present documented experiences, alongside independent experts and legal professionals.

Within 90 days of formal delivery of this petition, we request a written response identifying proposed legislation, court-rule changes, or constitutional reforms; the institutions responsible; and a timetable for action.

EPIC’s protections must mean something in the courtroom. Judicial independence must coexist with accountability. And no professional’s income should take priority over the rights and welfare of the person the court is supposed to protect.

 

Sign to demand lawful probate proceedings, independent appointments, financial transparency, and meaningful consequences for proven misconduct.