On Tuesday, July 8, 2025, Troy 52-4 District Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig denied allegations made by the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) that she created a “climate of fear” among court staff. The judge responded to claims of misconduct, stating that her actions were aimed at maintaining accurate records and a professional atmosphere.

In a formal complaint filed by the JTC in early June, Judge Hartig was accused of overstepping her authority, bullying court staff, and attempting to conceal a mental health evaluation during the commission’s investigation. The commission alleged that her behavior disrupted administrative duties within the court and that she had made unreasonable demands of staff. Additionally, the complaint stated that she dismissed criminal cases as a form of punishment against prosecutors and criticized the county prosecutor’s office for its stance on in-person hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Judge Hartig refuted these claims, asserting that she had not bullied anyone or acted outside her jurisdiction. She argued that her intention was to ensure the smooth operation of her courtroom and to respect the litigants appearing before her. In her response, she labeled the JTC’s process as “unitary,” asserting that it violated due process and that delays in bringing charges against her should invalidate the complaint.

The JTC’s complaints included allegations that Judge Hartig berated court staff from the bench and failed to accommodate requests for rescheduling hearings during the pandemic. In her defense, she denied any allegations of discourteous behavior toward staff or other judges. She emphasized her commitment to professionalism and respect while managing her courtroom.

One specific accusation involved her treatment of a probation officer and a court administrator during a drug court session in 2018, which Judge Hartig labeled as “patently untrue.” While she acknowledged discussing budgetary concerns on the record, she stated that transparency was important, and the courtroom deserved to know the details.

Regarding another allegation of sending a disrespectful email to her chief judge, Judge Hartig explained that the email was not intended to be disrespectful. She described it as an expression of her frustration with the lack of communication during the early days of the pandemic. The email was sent in the context of discussions about canceling non-essential cases, a decision she felt was made without adequate consultation.

The complaint also noted that Judge Hartig failed to comply with a request to share results from a commission-ordered psychological evaluation, which she submitted six months after the deadline. The JTC had extended the deadline multiple times to accommodate her. The commission indicated that her mental health had been a concern, but details from the evaluation were redacted from the complaint.

In her response, Judge Hartig argued that objections to sharing the evaluation report should not be deemed misconduct. She indicated that she had voluntarily allowed the JTC to receive a report from the State Bar of Michigan’s Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program in late 2023. However, she noted that she did not sign a waiver for a subsequent evaluation from a facility in Colorado and was not required to submit that report.

Judge Hartig characterized the accusation that she withheld the Colorado report as “scandalous,” arguing that she had already undergone required evaluations and had no further obligation to provide additional reports. She raised concerns about the accuracy of the report and the qualifications of those conducting the evaluation.

Judge Hartig has been a licensed attorney and a member of the State Bar of Michigan since 1991. Since January 2011, he has served as a judge for the 52nd District Court, Division 4, in Oakland County, Michigan.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.