Extra Steps To Eliminate Bias, Prejudice In Courts Debated

(Source: MIRS.news, Published 08/29/2025) The Michigan Supreme Court is considering amending court rules to prohibit bias, prejudice and harassment, prompting the opposition to opine that such a move raises “constitutional objections.”

The goal of revising Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct 3 and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 6.5 is to incorporate the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2, Rule 2.3 – which states judges shall perform their duties without bias or prejudice – into the state’s code and rules.

Marcia McBrien, a board member of the Catholic Lawyers Society of Metropolitan Detroit, questioned why the current rules are not adequate to ensure courteous and respectful treatment of everyone involved in the justice system.

“Moreover, how would these changes benefit the public?” she wrote in an undated letter to the court. “Does anyone see value in a regime in which frightened attorneys – not sure when a remark or gesture will be deemed to cross the line into ‘manifesting bias or prejudice’ – dial back their advocacy, chilled from providing the zealous representation that their clients need and serve?”

However, the Outreach at Michigan Law, a student-led pro bono project at the University of Michigan Law School, countered that “religious beliefs should not weigh against accepting the amendments.”

The court will hear testimony on the proposed changes at an administrative hearing set for September 25.

Justice Brian Zahra wrote that he would have declined to publish the proposal for comment.

More than 73 percent of the 58 comment letters submitted to the court oppose the proposed changes, and voicing opposition are Third Judicial Circuit Court Chief Judge Patricia Perez Fresard, the Michigan Judges Association, and Pacific Justice Institute.

“There can be no doubt that our Constitution calls for equal treatment in religious conflicts. The proposed rule represents an attempt to literally impose a secular religion on religious adherents,” wrote Dave Peters of Pacific Justice Institute. “The State is not supposed to pick sides between religions, whether they be traditional or New Age secular creations.”

Many of those opposing the amendments take issue with eliminating language related to “courtesy and respect,” saying that language serves the profession well.

Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Sima G. Patel agrees, writing that retaining that language “alongside the proposed language prohibiting words or conduct that manifest bias or prejudice” is appropriate.

St. Clair Shores attorney Donn Fresard said the proposed changes are “agenda-driven rule amendments and have no place in our court rules.”

Fresard also wrote that he has “progressive lawyer colleagues” who like to attend “Dump Trump” rallies, carrying signs and changing, but under the proposed rule, “socially conscious lawyers and their staff would seem to be reluctant to attend such rallies, or conversationally referring to President (Donald) Trump as too old, too fat, too white, too orange and too MAGA, inasmuch as the President is a person currently ‘involved in the legal process.’”

Fresard added: “Just because the ABA proposes something does not mean it is a great idea.”

Among those expressing support for the proposed changes were the Attorney Grievance Commission and Citizens for Racial Equity in Washtenaw.

The State Bar of Michigan’s letter said the proposed amendments would “significantly advance” the interest of protecting the integrity of legal proceedings from bias.