In this case, respondent merely speculated as to her intent, and other than the possibility that the guess was self-serving, which the Commission acknowledged and rejected, we cannot conclude that respondent's guess is akin to either a misrepresentation or a misleading statement. [In re Gorcyca, 500 Mich. 588, 639; 902 N.W.2d 828 (2017), quoting Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed).] Although our analysis was in the context of awarding costs under MCR 9.205(B), the definitions we applied are applicable here.

, we cannot conclude that respondent’s guess is akin to either a misrepresentation or a misleading statement. [In re Gorcyca, 500 Mich. 588, 639, 902 N.W.2d 828 (2017), quoting Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.).]

Iddings involved misconduct similar to that at issue here, and accordingly it should be a guidepost in our sanction determination. We are unpersuaded by respondent's argument that his misconduct is not so bad as that in In re Gorcyca , 500 Mich. 588, 902 N.W.2d 828 (2017), in which we ordered only public censure. Id. at 631, 902 N.W.2d 828.

First, parental alienation implicates MCL 722.23(j). See In re Gorcyca, 500 Mich. 588, 597 n 4; 902 N.W.2d 828 (2017) (noting that "[p]arental alienation is seemingly contrary to MCL 722.23(j)"). MCL 722.23(j) is the best-interests factor that requires consideration of "[t]he willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents." See In re Gorcyca, 500 Mich. at 597 n 4.

See People v Bean, 457 Mich. 677, 682-683; 580 N.W.2d 390 (1998); People v Dye, 431 Mich. 58, 66-67; 427 N.W.2d 501 (1988). See also In re Gorcyca, 500 Mich. 588, 627; 902 N.W.2d 828 (2017) (holding that due diligence is" '[t]he diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation' "), quoting Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed). While due diligence must be more than a mere gesture, it does not mean that one must exhaust everything that is theoretically or abstractly possible.

In addition, Respondent engaged in deceitful conduct by failing to disclose material facts regarding her relationships with Detective Furlong and Shari Pollesch to parties appearing before her. Respondent attempted to conceal evidence in her divorce proceeding by deleting all data from the cell phone that she turned over to her attorney. Respondent's dishonesty was not an isolated incident, but pervaded her conduct both on and off the bench. InIn re Gorcyca, 500 Mich. 588, 637; 902 N.W.2d 828 (2017), the Court noted "[t]he fact that a statement may be incorrect does not, by itself, render the statement `false' within the context of a legal proceeding." TheGorcyca decision involved a judge's representation regarding the meaning of a gesture she made with her finger.

Parental alienation may affect at least one best-interest factor. See In re Gorcya, 500 Mich 588, 597 n 4; 902 NW2d 828 (2017). Plaintiff began making false accusations concerning defendant since at least July of 2013, see Delekta, unpub op at 3, and the record evidence supported that plaintiff continued to do so.

The Commission's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for discipline against respondent Kahlilia Davis, former 36th District Court judge, are reviewed de novo. In re Gorcyca , 500 Mich. 588, 613, 902 N.W.2d 828 (2017). We adopt in part the recommendations made by the Commission.

See People v Bean , 457 Mich. 677, 682-683, 580 N.W.2d 390 (1998) ; People v Dye , 431 Mich. 58, 66-67, 427 N.W.2d 501 (1988). See also In re Gorcyca , 500 Mich. 588, 627, 902 N.W.2d 828 (2017) (holding that due diligence is " ‘[t]he diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation’ "), quoting Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.). While due diligence must be more than a mere gesture, it does not mean that one must exhaust everything that is theoretically or abstractly possible.

As this Court recently explained, "legal errors, standing alone, generally do not suggest the existence of judicial misconduct." In re Gorcyca , 500 Mich. 588, 616, 902 N.W.2d 828 (2017). See also MCR 9.203(B) ("An erroneous decision by a judge made in good faith and with due diligence is not judicial misconduct.").