Many residents meet the court through a magistrate before they ever see a judge, so T.R. began by asking what the job is. Sawicky serves as a magistrate in the 47th District Court, which covers Farmington and Farmington Hills; at the time of the interview he had held the role for nearly 20 years. In his description, judges are the “final arbiters” who preside over trials and issue final rulings, while magistrates take on the front-loaded, high-volume work: arraignments, setting bonds, reviewing and authorizing search and arrest warrants, small claims and traffic matters.

He explained that judges are typically elected, with the governor appointing a replacement if a seat opens, and that magistrates are appointed by the judges and the court administrator and work within the authority the judges give them. In the 47th, he said, the judges give magistrates wide latitude.

To show students how the system fits together, he said he draws a hierarchy with the Michigan Supreme Court at the top and himself at the bottom, then reminds them that cases start at the bottom and work upward through appeals. He estimated that upwards of 40,000 cases move through the court, noting he had not seen its annual report, and said a magistrate’s job is to resolve what can be resolved so judges can focus on more serious matters.

Judges decide cases, but how they conduct a courtroom matters too. When T.R. asked why voters should support him, Sawicky pointed first to courtroom experience and deep legal knowledge, which he said voters rank highly in trial judges, and then to what he called judicial temperament: patience, open-mindedness, courtesy, freedom from bias and a commitment to equal justice. He said he tries to practice that every day, whether representing clients or presiding as a magistrate, and that he stays calm under pressure and listens to all sides.

He also described his relationship with clients: they should expect honest advice, not just what they want to hear, and judges who have never been in that position, he said, can grow frustrated when a client changes course at the last minute. For people nervous about a first court visit, he said he reminds them that it is not like television and asks them to take a breath and listen.

Court technology shapes who can take part in a hearing and how much time and worry a visit costs. Sawicky said the court adopted Zoom during COVID and never shut down, and has kept and expanded it. For a traffic ticket, he said, a person can call in to an informal hearing at a scheduled time; the officer joins, a virtual breakout room lets the two talk, and the matter is often resolved or reduced before it comes back before him. People without a computer or reliable internet can use “Zoom rooms” at the courthouse, where a clerk helps them join.

He described in-custody arraignments held by video with the holding cell, which he said avoids transporting people and speeds up the process, and after-hours and hospital arraignments handled from home on a rotating on-call schedule. He also said Michigan courts are moving to e-filing and digital records, that he has been learning the document platform used in his court, and that safeguarding personal information is part of the work, with regular staff training. Asked whether judges need to understand this technology, he said he thinks it is crucial.

On decorum, he said remote hearings are informal in setup but still formal proceedings, and described using judgment when someone appears from a job site: “pick our battles” while still expecting mutual respect.

Sawicky emphasized the nonpartisan nature of this judgeship and the importance of finding judicial races on the ballot. He said he has no political affiliation and expects support from people on both sides. He asked how a person would feel about a judge deciding their case by party, and answered his own question with a firm no.

In his view, a judge’s oath is to the Constitution and the law, and once partisan politics enters decisions, confidence in the whole system erodes. He tied that to campaign finance, saying a party financing a candidate turns a judgeship into a contest between parties or special interests, and described the three branches of government as needing to “stay in their lane,” including at the local level. Favoritism of any kind, he said, has no place: everyone should be treated the same way.

Judges are neighbors too, and T.R. asked how Sawicky’s local involvement would serve him on the bench. He said voters value judges who understand the community, and described raising two children in Farmington, coaching their teams, and being active in local organizations: past president of the Xemplar Club of Farmington and Farmington Hills, a supporter of the CARES food pantry, and a member of the Farmington Elks.

He acknowledged the tension. Judges are constrained in what they can take part in, he said, and some argue judges should stay back so that people they know do not end up before them, or so that nothing looks like favoritism. His view is that engagement is a benefit, not a risk, and he said he would continue his involvement if elected while staying conscious of potential conflicts of interest. In his words, those life experiences help him understand the people in front of him and make better decisions.

Courts need schedules, staff and budgets as well as judges. T.R. asked about court administration, and Sawicky was direct that, as a magistrate and an employee of the court, he does not have much hands-on experience with day-to-day management. He described how the work is divided: a court administrator and deputy run daily operations with the two judges and the clerks, while judges decide the caseload.

He listed what that involves: two to three dozen employees, clerks, security and court officers, confidential records with restricted access, cash handling for fines and bonds, scheduling and staffing, budgeting and presenting a budget to the city, caseload statistics and a probation department. He also noted that the court works with two police departments, Farmington and Farmington Hills, plus state police, the sheriff and occasionally other agencies whose cases arise in the area. His summary was that the court is the community’s conscience, a place where disputes are resolved and people are held to account, which is why people need to trust it.

Asked what it takes to become a judge, Sawicky said a person must graduate from law school and practice law for at least five years, in any field. Voters, he added, tend to appreciate broad courtroom experience, and preferably litigators, because trials, motions and arguments teach the rules of evidence and court rules in a way desk work does not.

At the time of the interview, he described almost 31 years as a practicing attorney: assistant prosecuting attorney in Oakland County, criminal defense work, and magistrate since 2006. As a prosecutor, he said, he learned how cases are built and how charging decisions and plea agreements affect victims and public safety. As a defense attorney he saw how power imbalances, overcharging and poorly written search warrants affect clients’ lives. As a magistrate, he sets bonds, conducts arraignments and reviews warrants, the same kinds of matters a district judge handles.

He described growing up in Philadelphia, attending Fordham University in New York, and studying law at the University of Detroit (now Detroit Mercy). He said he began taking court appointments in the 1990s, did a great deal of public-defender work, and now serves as a defense advocate in specialty “problem-solving” courts for alcohol and drug treatment and mental health in two other district courts, programs that give participants tools to rely on after probation.

Reflecting on the human consequences of court decisions, Sawicky said he spent about a year and a half in juvenile court as a prosecutor, handling both delinquency cases and abuse-and-neglect proceedings. Juvenile matters belong exclusively to the family court, he explained, so a district judge would not hear them, and he nevertheless considers the experience valuable.

He called decisions about terminating parental rights among the hardest, because they weigh a child’s safety against a family’s bonds. He said that experience informs how he thinks about bond decisions in district court, and described young people in delinquency cases as often needing guidance. He added that he sees a role for society in helping people who struggle with mental illness or addiction, while acknowledging that a judge’s own role is limited and that judges can recognize available services.

Two questions run through the conversation: why this career, and why run? Asked what drew him to law, Sawicky said there was no single moment. He entered law school at 21, noted that television shows of the era may have played a part, and said he had always found legal issues interesting and had been told he could speak well. In class he found himself among older students with careers as engineers, teachers and doctors, and realized he had to buckle down.

Asked why he is running, he described the bench as the next logical step in a career he sees as continuous, one that lets him work for the community in a neutral way. He said the term is six years and that, at the time of the interview, he had made decisions for almost 20 years in full view of the public. T.R. summarized his answer as a career arc moving in that direction, and Sawicky agreed with that description.