Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attorney Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Critic warns removing term limits for attorney‑discipline leadership could erode public trust
Summary
A commenter told the Michigan Supreme Court that proposed amendments to rules governing the Attorney Grievance Commission and Attorney Discipline Board risk entrenching leadership and undermining public confidence without parallel transparency and independent oversight measures.
Beth Ayers testified in opposition to aspects of proposed amendments to MCR 9.108 and 9.110 (ADM 2024‑19) that would address mid‑term vacancies and remove a two‑full‑term officer limit for the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Attorney Discipline Board.
Ayers said the bodies oversee misconduct investigations and public protection; she warned that removing term limits while retaining concentrated institutional influence risks the appearance — and possibly the reality — of insulation from outside oversight. She highlighted Cynthia Bullington’s long tenure in the Attorney Grievance Commission as illustrative of entrenched influence and argued that continuity without enhanced transparency invites public skepticism.
“Term limits exist for a reason to prevent concentrated influence, to encourage fresh perspectives, and to reduce the appearance of institutional permanence,” Ayers said. She urged the court to consider parallel reforms — including stronger public reporting, complaint protections, and independent review mechanisms — if leadership continuity is expanded.
The court heard the comment and posed no immediate vote on the amendments.
