Matthew DePerno, a Republican candidate for the Michigan Supreme Court, finds himself embroiled in a complex legal battle that could have far-reaching consequences for his political aspirations and professional career. The Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission filed a complaint against DePerno in June 2023, accusing him of three counts of professional misconduct stemming from his time as an attorney for former state Representative Todd Courser. These charges, which include allegations of filing a frivolous lawsuit, engaging in deceitful conduct, and knowingly making false statements, have cast a shadow over DePerno's campaign for the state's highest court.
The timing of the disciplinary proceedings has become a point of contention, with Austin Blessing-Nelson, associate counsel for the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, indicating that the case will likely be resolved after the November 5 election. This timeline introduces an element of uncertainty into DePerno's candidacy, as the potential outcomes of the disciplinary case could have significant implications for his ability to serve on the Supreme Court if elected. Under the Michigan Constitution, Supreme Court justices must be licensed to practice law in the state and have been admitted to practice for at least five years.
DePerno's legal troubles extend beyond the professional misconduct charges. He is also facing felony charges related to an alleged scheme to tamper with voting machines following the 2020 election in an attempt to prove they were rigged against former President Donald Trump. DePerno has pleaded not guilty to these charges, but they add another layer of complexity to his bid for the Supreme Court nomination. The Republican Party convention delegates will need to weigh these factors when deciding whether to nominate DePerno in August, considering the risk that he might be unable to serve if elected.
The potential consequences of DePerno's legal challenges have sparked discussions among legal experts about the various scenarios that could unfold. Mark Brewer, an attorney and former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, suggests that if DePerno were to win election to the Supreme Court and subsequently receive an unfavorable decision from the Attorney Discipline Board, he might be unable to take office or could be forced to leave if already sworn in. This situation could potentially create a vacancy on the court, which would be filled by an appointment from Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat.
DePerno, for his part, remains defiant in the face of these challenges. He characterizes the cases against him as political persecution and expresses confidence in his eventual vindication. In a recent interview, DePerno dismissed concerns about his ongoing legal issues, arguing that the state's cases against him lack merit. He contends that the prolonged nature of these proceedings is itself a form of punishment designed to damage his reputation and political prospects.
The professional misconduct case has already encountered some procedural hurdles. During a pre-hearing, a member of the Attorney Discipline Board panel asked to recuse himself due to concerns about impartiality related to DePerno's involvement in the 2020 election controversy. This recusal highlights the politically charged nature of the proceedings and the challenges in finding an impartial panel to adjudicate the case.
As the legal proceedings continue to unfold, DePerno's campaign for the Michigan Supreme Court faces an uphill battle. He must not only secure the Republican nomination at the party's August convention but also navigate the potential fallout from his ongoing legal challenges. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications not only for DePerno's political future but also for the composition of the Michigan Supreme Court and the balance of power in the state's judiciary.
