On Friday, January 9, 2026, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission filed an amended complaint against Kirsten Nielsen Hartig, a judge of the 52nd District Court, Division 4, in Troy, Michigan. The complaint alleges multiple instances of misconduct and raises serious questions about Hartig’s mental capacity to continue serving on the bench.
The five-count complaint details a range of accusations, beginning with Hartig’s alleged refusal to provide the Commission with a psychological evaluation report. According to the document, the Commission ordered Hartig to undergo a psychological evaluation in April 2024 as part of an investigation into her conduct as a judge. The evaluation, conducted at All Points North, concluded in June 2024, but Hartig allegedly withheld the report from the Commission until December 5, 2024, despite multiple requests and extended deadlines. The report purportedly stated that Hartig was “unsafe to practice” due to disruptive behavior and personality dysfunction.
The second count accuses Hartig of making false statements to the Commission in her response to a 28-day letter. The complaint alleges that Hartig falsely stated that Dana O’Neal was fired for incompetence by Honorable Joseph Fabrizio, and that her staff was not interviewed as part of the investigation. The Commission claims Hartig knew these statements were false.
Count three focuses on Hartig’s alleged mistreatment and abuse of court employees and obstruction of the administration of her court. The complaint details numerous incidents where Hartig purportedly attempted to assert control over departments and employees over whom she had no authority, treated court employees and administrators discourteously, and created a climate of fear among court personnel.
The fourth count accuses Hartig of improperly dismissing criminal cases, specifically citing instances where she allegedly dismissed cases with prejudice to punish the prosecution rather than on the merits of the case. The complaint alleges that Hartig did not confine her state law docket to state law days, and dismissed cases with prejudice when prosecutors requested adjournments due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The most serious allegations are contained in count five, which asserts that Hartig suffers from a mental disability that prevents her from performing her judicial duties. The complaint cites the results of two psychological evaluations, one conducted at Bright Pine Behavioral Health in September 2024 and another by Dr. Michael Lawrence in December 2025.
The Bright Pine evaluation reportedly showed significant challenges with visual learning and recall, encoding and memorizing facts, shifting focus, and retaining important details. The evaluation by Dr. Lawrence allegedly revealed low average performance in alternating attention, mental flexibility, and sequencing, as well as abnormal initial learning for visual information and difficulties with executive function and language-based measures. Dr. Lawrence’s evaluation concluded that Hartig’s neuropsychological profile is abnormal and consistent with a clinical diagnosis of Mild Neurocognitive Disorder, raising concern for an emerging dementia-type syndrome.
The Commission argues that these cognitive impairments prevent Hartig from effectively reading, analyzing, and recalling facts, applying law to facts, making credibility determinations, and writing coherent opinions and orders.
The Judicial Tenure Commission has ordered Hartig to file a verified answer to the complaint within 14 days, containing a full and fair disclosure of all facts and circumstances pertaining to the allegations.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
