On Tuesday, August 12, 2025, disciplinary counsel replied to Twenty-Third District Court Judge Joseph Slaven’s answer regarding a motion to amend a formal complaint against him. The response was filed with the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, addressing claims made by Slaven concerning allegations of unlawful eavesdropping.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Joseph D. Slaven,” with case number 108.
In the reply, disciplinary counsel contested Slaven’s assertion that the motion to add a new paragraph to the complaint should be rejected due to an ongoing criminal investigation related to the eavesdropping claims. Slaven had indicated that he reported his concerns to the Michigan State Police in October 2024, but did not provide evidence that any investigation was currently active or likely to result in charges.
Disciplinary counsel argued that Slaven’s claim lacked substantiation, stating that he failed to demonstrate how the inclusion of the new allegation would impede or damage any investigation, should it exist. They noted that he did not reference any legal precedent to support his argument that judicial or civil matters should be paused in light of an active criminal inquiry.
The response highlighted a specific case, Chao v. Fleming, which Slaven cited as a relevant authority. Disciplinary counsel pointed out that the circumstances in Chao were not comparable to Slaven’s situation. In that case, the court granted a temporary stay to protect defendants from the dilemma of incriminating themselves in a civil case while a criminal investigation was ongoing. However, counsel noted that Slaven was claiming to be a victim rather than a target of any criminal investigation, which distinguished his case from the one cited.
Counsel emphasized that several factors weighed in favor of including the new paragraph in the amended complaint. They argued that there was no private interest at stake for disciplinary counsel, no unfair burden on Slaven, and a strong public interest in addressing judicial misconduct.
Furthermore, disciplinary counsel clarified that while some facts concerning the allegations were known prior to the commission’s public complaint in May, further investigation had revealed additional important details that warranted the amendment. They cited Michigan Court Rule 9.222(C) as permitting continued investigation even after a complaint is issued.
In conclusion, disciplinary counsel requested that the Master grant their motion to file the complete amended complaint, which includes the contested paragraph.
Slaven, who graduated from the University of Michigan in 1994 with dual bachelor’s degrees and later from the University of Detroit School of Law, has served as a judge since January 1, 2015.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
