On Tuesday, June 9, 2026, Retired Judge Jennifer A. Mazzuchi, who served as the neutral presider for the public proceeding in the judicial misconduct case involving Michigan Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig, issued her report detailing her findings regarding the allegations of misconduct against Judge Hartig.
The Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) initiated an investigation into Judge Hartig following a request filed in July 2020, with a second request submitted by the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office in 2022. A formal complaint was filed on June 4, 2025, which was later amended on January 9, 2026, to include five counts. The trial commenced on February 2, 2026, and involved approximately 5½ weeks of testimony.
The neutral’s report found that Disciplinary Counsel proved Count One, which alleged Judge Hartig refused to provide a psychological evaluation report to the JTC. The count focused on Judge Hartig’s delay in submitting a report from All Points North (APN), a mental health facility, to the JTC.
While Judge Hartig eventually provided the report on December 5, 2024, after a five-month delay from the production deadline of July 25, 2024, the neutral concluded this delay constituted a violation of obligations. The neutral acknowledged that Judge Hartig had valid reasons to question the APN report’s methodology and diagnoses, but these concerns did not excuse her failure to provide the report.
Disciplinary Counsel did not prove Count Two, which alleged false statements made by Judge Hartig in her December 5, 2024 response to a “28-day letter.” The alleged false statements pertained to the filing of a Request for Investigation and the interviewing of her staff. The neutral found that while the statements were inaccurate, they were not made with the intent to deceive or mislead, as contemplated by relevant legal definitions. The neutral concluded that the statements were careless but not intentionally wrongful.
Count Three, alleging mistreatment and abuse of court employees and obstruction of the administration of her court, was found to be proven by Disciplinary Counsel. This count encompassed a range of allegations, including lack of deference to the chief judge and administrative chain of command, and discourteous interactions with colleagues and court employees.
The neutral’s report highlighted specific incidents, such as Judge Hartig’s insistence that court administrator Jill Palulian hire her friend for a position, her unreasonable demands on court administrator Dana O’Neal regarding her schedule, and her berating of probation supervisor Patti Bates and court administrator Dana O’Neal in open court. The neutral also noted Judge Hartig’s inappropriate conduct during a COVID-19 pandemic-related dispute with Chief Judge Fabrizio and her disrespectful comments to a public defender.
While acknowledging Judge Hartig’s efforts to improve her behavior, the neutral concluded that her conduct, particularly her repeated, inappropriate treatment of certain staff members, constituted a violation of judicial canons.
Disciplinary Counsel failed to prove Count Four, which alleged improper dismissal of criminal cases. This count involved the dismissal with prejudice of the Price case and the Armstrong cases. The neutral found that while the dismissals were erroneous, they were made in good faith and with due diligence, and therefore did not constitute judicial misconduct. The neutral concluded that Judge Hartig genuinely believed she had the authority to enter the dismissals with prejudice, despite the OCPO’s actions.
Finally, Disciplinary Counsel failed to prove Count Five, which alleged a mental disability preventing Judge Hartig from performing her judicial duties. While acknowledging evidence of abnormal findings in neuropsychological evaluations and some concerning behaviors, the neutral found that the allegations did not establish a present inability to perform judicial tasks.
The neutral noted that Judge Hartig demonstrated the ability to have positive relationships and that her conduct did not consistently reflect the behaviors expected of someone with a cognitive disability. The neutral concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of “disability” by a preponderance of the evidence.
In conclusion, the neutral found that the JTC proved Counts I and III, establishing violations of MCR 9.220(D), MCR 9.202(B)(1)(f), and Canons 3(A) and 3(B). The neutral found that the JTC failed to prove Counts II, IV, and V.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
