Independent report substantiates inappropriate workplace behavior by Macomb County Prosecutor

The sad reality is that Prosecutor Lucido took over a corruptly run Prosecutor’s Office and used due process in the courts to achieve the goals and objectives of restoring that office to its proper standing and capabilities protecting the public. His success in the courts when challenging obstruction of that effort by the office of County Executive has enraged the County Executive. This so called “report” is nothing more than a collection of unchallenged complaints. These sorts of complaints have always, and should have, followed the grievance process under union contracts. That would have complied with essential due process, including the opportunity of the accused to confront his accuser. Instead, the County Executive commissioned a law firm, at taxpayer’s expense, primarily to seek out complaints and draw conclusions and recommendations against an elected official he clearly dislikes. When asked, the outside law firm could not provide any authority to conduct this so-called “investigation”. On the other hand, Prosecutor Lucido provided a unanimous opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals teaching that the County Executive unequivocally does not have the authority to hire an outside law firm to “investigate” another county-wide elected official.

The citizens of Macomb County elected Mr. Lucido as Prosecutor to clean-up a crime infested prosecutor’s office headed by then Prosecutor and now convicted felon Eric Smith. To say that changes had to be made to remedy the rampant damage caused by the admitted criminal conduct occurring in the Prosecutor’s Office is an understatement. It appears that several Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys were upset that Prosecutor Lucido wanted to make changes in the Prosecutor’s Office. The report itself highlights – but quickly jettisons as an inconvenient truth – that Prosecutor Lucido lawfully “desired to remove or minimize the roles of individuals who were in senior positions during Prosecutor Smith’s administration and simply exercised his discretion as an elected official to reorganize the roles in the Prosecutor’s Office.” The report also fails to note that there have not been any grievances filed against Prosecutor Lucido under the governing collective bargaining agreement with the exception of the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who was the subject of an investigation by the State Bar of Michigan’s Attorney Disciplinary Board.

Remarkably, the report questions Prosecutor Lucido for performing a necessary function of his job by disciplining an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who (1) admitted he failed to inform Prosecutor Lucido that the State Bar of Michigan’s Attorney Disciplinary Board had sent him a formal Request for Investigation accusing him of violating the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct that govern attorneys in Michigan and (2) failed to inform Prosecutor Lucido of a related Notice of Hearing. This Assistant Prosecuting Attorney also failed to follow the necessary steps to request that the taxpayers of Macomb County pay him time off in connection with this proceeding. Perhaps such conduct would have been acceptable under Prosecutor Smith’s administration, but such conduct is not, and will not be, tolerated in Prosecutor Lucido’s administration.