Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Remote Judicial Participation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wayne County Judge Urges Caution on Broad Remote-Participation Rule for Judges
Summary
Judge Kevin Cox told the Michigan Supreme Court that remote proceedings have improved access to courts but raised concerns that permitting prolonged remote work by judges could weaken public confidence and the perception of judicial seriousness.
Judge Kevin Cox of the Wayne County Circuit Court told the Michigan Supreme court during its September administrative public hearing that while remote proceedings have clear benefits, the court should weigh how long judges may remain away from courtrooms under any new rule.
"I think everybody has experienced the benefits of judicial proceedings being conducted remotely," Cox said, adding that remote appearances "has made access to our courts much easier, for many people." The proposed item (ADM file 2019-40) would adopt Administrative Order 2025-x, rescind Administrative Order 2012-7 and amend MCR 2.407 to clarify when, from where, and how a judicial officer may participate remotely, subject to the chief judge's approval.
Cox said the central concern is public perception and trust. "If judges don't come to court 4 weeks at a time, it lessens, the respect to the court system," he told the justices. He said some divisions, including family and civil, have continued to operate efficiently, but questioned whether replacing in-person presence with prolonged remote practice would affect public confidence.
Cox described himself as neutral on the specific rule change and said he had no definitive solution. "I wanna be like Switzerland," he said, adding he respected colleagues who work remotely and who "for the most part, work remotely because they're efficient and they're smart, and justice is served." But he warned against the image of judges making decisions "for all intents and purposes, over the telephone."
The record for this item included no formal motion or vote at the hearing; Cox spoke as a member of the trial court bench and offered observations for the justices to consider as they finalize any administrative order or rule amendment. The court did not direct staff or issue a decision on the record at the hearing.
