The Michigan Supreme Court issued a ruling in *In re Contempt of Kathy H. Murphy*, a case that examined the standards for criminal contempt proceedings against attorneys and the procedural requirements courts must follow when initiating such proceedings.
Attorney Kathy H. Murphy was held in criminal contempt by the 36th District Court during a preliminary examination proceeding where she was representing a client. The contempt finding occurred after Murphy allegedly engaged in disrespectful conduct toward Judge Kenyetta S. Jones during a recess while the court was off the record, but in direct view of the judge.
According to court records, the incident took place during a routine preliminary examination. After the court took a recess and went off the record, Murphy purportedly engaged in conduct that the district court judge deemed disrespectful and contemptuous. The specific nature of Murphy's alleged conduct was not detailed in the available court documents, but it occurred while she was in the judge's direct line of sight.
When the preliminary examination resumed, Judge Jones ordered another recess and then reconvened the proceedings specifically to address Murphy's behavior through a summary contempt proceeding. Summary contempt proceedings allow judges to immediately address disruptive or disrespectful conduct that occurs in their presence without the need for a separate trial or extensive procedural safeguards.
The district court found Murphy in criminal contempt and imposed a sentence of two days in jail. Murphy subsequently appealed the contempt conviction to the Wayne Circuit Court, challenging both the procedural aspects of the contempt proceeding and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction.
The Wayne Circuit Court, with Judge Noah P. Hood presiding, reversed the district court's contempt order and vacated Murphy's conviction. The circuit court's reversal centered on a critical procedural failure by the district court: the failure to create an adequate record of Murphy's conduct that allegedly constituted criminal contempt.
Judge Hood's opinion noted that the district court's inadequate record-keeping made it impossible for the circuit court to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to support the contempt conviction. This procedural deficiency proved fatal to the prosecution's case, as appellate courts require a clear record of the alleged contemptuous conduct to properly review the lower court's decision.
The case then proceeded to the Michigan Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the application for leave to appeal on May 7, 2025, before issuing its decision on July 25, 2025. The high court's involvement in the case suggests the significance of the legal issues presented, particularly regarding the proper procedures for contempt proceedings and the balance between judicial authority and attorney advocacy rights.
Contempt of court proceedings against attorneys raise important questions about the boundaries of zealous advocacy and the proper exercise of judicial authority. Defense attorneys have a professional duty to zealously represent their clients within the bounds of the law, while judges maintain inherent authority to preserve courtroom decorum and ensure the orderly administration of justice.
The Michigan Supreme Court's review of this case comes at a time when courts across the country are grappling with similar issues regarding attorney conduct and judicial authority. The proper balance between allowing attorneys to effectively advocate for their clients and maintaining courtroom order remains a subject of ongoing legal debate.
The case also highlights the importance of adequate record-keeping in judicial proceedings, particularly in contempt cases where the alleged misconduct occurs in the judge's presence. Courts must ensure that sufficient records exist to allow for meaningful appellate review, even in summary contempt proceedings that are designed to address immediate disruptions.
Procedural safeguards in contempt proceedings serve to protect both the integrity of the judicial system and the rights of attorneys to provide effective representation. The requirement for adequate record-keeping ensures that appellate courts can properly review contempt findings and prevents arbitrary or unsupported contempt convictions.
The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Murphy's case will likely provide guidance for lower courts throughout the state regarding the proper procedures for initiating and conducting contempt proceedings against attorneys. The ruling may also clarify the evidentiary standards required to support criminal contempt convictions and the specific record-keeping obligations courts must fulfill.
For practicing attorneys in Michigan, this case serves as a reminder of both the potential consequences of courtroom conduct and the procedural protections available when facing contempt charges. The case demonstrates that even in summary contempt proceedings, courts must follow proper procedures and maintain adequate records to ensure that any resulting convictions can withstand appellate scrutiny.
The outcome of this case will have implications for the ongoing relationship between the judiciary and the legal profession in Michigan, as it addresses fundamental questions about judicial authority, attorney conduct, and the procedural requirements necessary to protect the rights of all parties involved in the legal system.