Issuu

LACHES

www.ocba.org | February 2026 | Number 685

EARLY DISCHARGE FROM PROBATION IN MICHIGAN:

How the Amendment to MCL 771.2 Changed the Law

Spotlight on MIDC Standards 6 and 7

PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS:

How Collaboration and Compassion Are Reshaping the Courts

Your occupation is Our occupation Sam Morgan & Greg Jones have a team of Employment Lawyers with decades of experience providing advice, counsel and representation to Employees and Employers in a wide variety of occupations, for: • Wrongful discharge cases, including breach of employment contract, discrimination, harassment and retaliation • Non-payment of compensation disputes, including commission, bonus and incentive compensation arrangements, and FLSA violations • Enforcement of equity award agreements and minority shareholder rights • Defending against mobility-killing non-compete and non-solicitation contracts • Separation agreement reviews and severance negotiations • Drafting employment contracts • HR counseling, defending against government investigations • Serious workplace injury and death cases

Greg Jones

Sam Morgan

2025 Michigan Super Lawyers Rising Stars Honoree

2006 to 2025 Michigan Super Lawyers Honoree

Our team includes Senior Associates Barbara Urlaub and Steven Cole, and Of counsel attorneys David Kotzian*, Donald Gasiorek*, Raymond Carey*, and Paul Hines. *

2025 Michigan Super Lawyers Honorees

Toll Free Phone: 888.421.9704 | Local: 248.865.0001 www.work-lawyers.com Sam Morgan David Kotzian Donald Gasiorek Ray Carey Paul Hines

Sam Morgan David Kotzian Donald Gasiorek Ray Carey Paul Hines

Sam Morgan David A. Kotzian Donald J. Gasiorek

Morgan & Jones L AW Y E R S

F O R

T H E

W O R K P L A C E

LEADERS in PREMISES cases! Millions in referral fees paid

in accordance with the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct

2024 - $5.75M

settlement for hi-lo versus pedestrian crash causing amputation of leg below the knee

2023 - $1.35 M

settlement on a trip and fall on a 1/2 inch sidewalk elevation causing a spinal cord contusion

2022 - $1.9 M

settlement on a trip and fall on a defective carpet in an apartment complex causing partial paralysis

248-744-5000 | tjslawfirm.com

LACHES

OAKLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 100 Bloomﬁeld Hills, Michigan 48302-0181 (248) 334-3400 • FAX (248) 334-7757 www.ocba.org

2025-2026 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CONTENTS FEBRUARY 2026 FEATURES Spotlight on MIDC Standards 6 and 7 Now fully implemented, these standards govern indigent defense workloads, qualiﬁcations, and reviews. By Pete Menna and Nicole M. Smithson 8 Early Discharge from Probation in Michigan: How the Amendment to MCL 771.2 Changed the Law The 2021 amendment gives deserving probationers a fair opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation. By Loren Dickstein and Kennedy Simerau 11 Problem-Solving Courts: How Collaboration and Compassion Are Reshaping the Courts and the Criminal Defendant These courts address the social, psychological, and economic factors that contribute to criminal behavior. By Alexandra M. Giuliani 14

PRESIDENT Sarah E. Kuchon

SECRETARY Syeda F. Davidson

DIRECTORS Julie L. Kosovec Emily E. Long Jennifer L. Lord Moheeb H. Murray Kimberley Ann Ward Layne A. Sakwa Silvia A. Mansoor Stephen T. McKenney James A. Martone Jennifer J. Henderson

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Jennifer Quick

ABA DELEGATE James W. Low

LACHES EDITORIAL BOARD Victoria B. King Syeda F. Davidson Coryelle E. Christie Lanita L. Carter

Thamara E. Sordo-Vieira Xavier J. Donajkowski Vincent C. Sallan

PRESIDENT-ELECT Aaron V. Burrell VICE PRESIDENT Kari L. Melkonian TREASURER Victoria B. King

THE MISSION OF THE OAKLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION IS TO SERVE THE PROFESSIONAL NEEDS OF OUR MEMBERS, IMPROVE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND ENSURE THE DELIVERY OF QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC. Articles and letters that appear in LACHES do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Oakland County Bar Association, and their publication does not constitute an endorsement of views that may be expressed. Readers are invited to address their own comments and opinions to: LACHES | Oakland County Bar Association 1760 S. Telegraph Rd., Ste. 100 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0181 Publication and editing are at the discretion of the editor. LACHES (ISSN 010765) is the monthly (except July and December) publication of the Oakland County Bar Association, a Michigan nonprofit corporation, 1760 S. Telegraph, Ste. 100, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0181. Copyright © 2026 Oakland County Bar Association. The price of an annual subscription ($20) is included in member dues. Periodical postage paid at Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 and additional entry offices. Postmaster: Send address changes in writing to Oakland County Bar Association, 1760 S. Telegraph, Ste. 100, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0181.

28 DEPARTMENTS

President’s Page E.D.itorial OCBA Calendar of Events Professional Development and CLE OCBA at Work On the Circuit Probate Foundation In Pro Per Jury Trials and Utilization New OCBA Members OCBA Staff Directory Adjourned

2 4 6 7 18 20 22 24 25 26 27 27 28

PUBLISHING PARTNER

5750 New King Drive, Ste. 100 Troy, MI 48098 Phone: 248.691.1800 / Fax: 248.691.4531

LACHES is published exclusively for the Oakland County Bar Association by Hour Custom Publishing, a division of Hour Media, L.L.C. Copyright © 2026. All rights reserved. No portion may be copied or published without the express written consent of the publisher. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of OCBA or Hour Media.

www.ocba.org

PRESIDENT’S PAGE

FROM BLAME TO ACCOUNTABILITY:

The Shift That Changes Everything By Sarah E. Kuchon

ault-finding is woven into the fabric of legal practice. As lawyers, we spend our days tracing responsibility lines, clarifying causal connections, and determining who must answer for the harm. In a personal injury case, we identify the person who caused the accident. In a criminal case, we focus on who is culpable for the crime. In a commercial dispute, we analyze who breached the agreement. And in family law, we identify who contributed to the breakdown, an inquiry far more complicated than any police report or contract. While blame is necessary in the courtroom, it becomes corrosive when carried into our personal or professional lives outside of litigation. The skills that help us advocate for others can, if left unchecked, hinder our personal growth. That is where the shift from blame to accountability becomes transformative.

BLAME KEEPS US STUCK

Brené Brown explains that blame is a tool we use to discharge discomfort and pain. It is a fast, reflexive way to avoid vulnerability. When we feel exposed, ashamed, or afraid, blame is a quick, defensive shield that gives us something to point at, offering the illusion of relief without the substance of resolution. But rather than moving us toward healing or clarity, blame keeps us circling the very emotions we are trying to escape. Blame feels deceptively productive. It hands us a ready-made storyline: Here is the problem, and here is the person who caused it. This storyline creates a false sense of clarity and control. Blame rarely brings relief. Instead, it traps us in a victim mindset, replaying narratives about how others should have acted and how life should have been. In that space, we are not just looking for someone to hold responsible but for evidence that we are not to blame. Morgan Wallen captures this impulse perfectly in his song “I’m the Problem.” His lyrics “If I’m the problem … you might be the reason” reflect the human reflex to quickly turn toward shared fault or justification to divert discomfort away from us. Wallen goes on to ask, “And if it’s

2 LACHES MAGAZINE

the whiskey / Then why you keep pullin’ it off the shelf?” Blame becomes the smoke screen for the patterns we don’t want to confront. It’s easier to fault the whiskey or the one “pullin’ it off the shelf ” than shine light on our own actions. Blame provides an external target and protects us from the pain of owning our part.

ACCOUNTABILITY MOVES US FORWARD

Accountability, on the other hand, is not concerned with who or what is to blame. Rather, it invites us to reflect on what part of the situation we can genuinely control. It moves us from victim to agent by forcing us to notice our participation in the cycle. Accountability shifts the focus from backward-looking rumination to for-

ward-looking intention. It requires us to examine our choices; take responsibility for our thoughts, behaviors, and emotions; and ask ourselves how we want to show up. Accountability encourages us to look beneath our reactions and ask why something hit such a nerve, what fear was poked, or what boundary felt crossed. Curiosity becomes the foundation for deeper understanding. More importantly, it transfers power away from the person we’re blaming and back to us. That pivot is often the difference between staying stuck and moving toward meaningful change.

RECLAIMING OUR POWER

When we place blame, we give someone else the power. While other people’s behavior can affect us, allowing their actions to dictate our

2025–2026 inner state leaves us powerless. Accountability counters this dynamic by inviting us to notice the story we are telling ourselves, to reflect on how we are interpreting events, and to choose responses that reflect our values rather than our reflexes. Blame often fuels emotional dysregulation, anger, frustration, helplessness, and resentment. These reactions are human, but they drain clarity and peace when they become habitual. Accountability turns “Why is this happening to me?” into “How do I want to meet this moment?” That shift reclaims our power. Even when we cannot control the circumstance, we can control how we respond. Accountability requires us to pause and choose a response that aligns with who we want to be. Wallen taps into this tension between pointing outward and turning inward. In “I Had Some Help,” he sings with Post Malone, “It ain’t like I can make this kind of mess all by myself,” a familiar move toward shared fault that allows us to keep the spotlight off ourselves. But in his song “Superman,” the tone shifts. He admits, “Don’t always know my wrong from right / And sometimes I’m my own worst enemy,” a humble recognition that the struggle isn’t just outside of him; it lives within. This movement from “I had some help” to acknowledging our “kryptonite” — whether it’s substance use, emotional dysregulation, avoidance, or simply not having the right

Accountability turns “Why is this happening to me?” into “How do I want to meet this moment?” That shift reclaims our power. Even when we cannot control the circumstance, we can control how we respond.

skills — marks the beginning of accountability. It asks us to pause and consider what part is ours, what part is not, and how we want to lead ourselves forward. Personal agency and power emerge in that reflection.

Elite Supporters PLATINUM $10,000+

REWRITING THE NARRATIVE

Perhaps the greatest gift of accountability is that it frees us from old stories. Blame keeps us stuck in familiar roles and patterns. These narratives often come from real hurt, but they can become cages when we revisit them again and again. Accountability opens the door. It says, “This happened, but what happens next is up to me.” It reclaims authorship. The shift from reenacting the past to authoring the present is where meaningful growth lies. It marks the moment when a new story can begin. As self-awareness expands, so does our capacity for connection. While blame narrows the lens to what someone else did wrong, accountability widens it to explore the dynamics unfolding between us. It invites dialogue instead of defensiveness. It transforms “you versus me” into “What is happening here, and how can we move forward?” In families, friendships, partnerships, and workplaces, this shift creates relational safety and strengthens trust.

GOLD

$7,500–9,999.99

BRONZE

$2,500–4,999.99

PRESENCE OVER PERFECTION

Accountability is not an exercise in self-blame or perfectionism. Rather, it is an invitation to humble reflection, to look honestly at our patterns without collapsing into shame. Accountability is not about taking all the responsibility but rather about taking our responsibility. It does not minimize the impact of others’ behavior. Instead, it directs our focus back to the one place where growth happens, the choices we make, the insights we cultivate, and the values we decide to uphold. In a profession built on identifying who is at fault, it is tempting to treat every interaction as if it requires a verdict. But our inner landscape works differently from a courtroom. Blame may help us advocate for clients, but accountability helps us advocate for ourselves. Ultimately, shifting from blame to accountability is a shift toward presence, toward living with clarity, intention, and resilience. It is the courage to ask what part is ours, what we can learn, and who we want to be moving forward. Accountability allows us to return to our center, where clarity meets compassion and meaningful change becomes possible. Sarah E. Kuchon is the president of the Oakland County Bar Association.

The Sargent Consulting Group, LLC

“Elite Supporters” consist of distinguished firms whose sponsorship of 2025-2026 OCBA events total $2,500 or more. There are four supporter levels. If you’d like more information on this program, contact Jennifer Quick at jquick@ocba.org. Elite Supporter levels: PLATINUM ($10,000+), GOLD ($7,500+), SILVER ($5,000+), and BRONZE ($2,500+)

Learn. Lead. Succeed. www.ocba.org

E.D.ITORIAL

BE AN AMBASSADOR:

Help Others Discover the OCBA By Jennifer Quick

elonging to a strong, engaged professional community has never been more important, and the Oakland County Bar Association continues to thrive because of members who actively share that sense of community with others. As we look ahead in 2026, our focus is on growth, connection, and ensuring that every attorney in our region has access to the many benefits that OCBA membership provides. And that is where you come in:

We are asking for your help in reaching out, inviting colleagues to get involved, and opening the door for others to experience what the OCBA has to offer. This year, we have set an ambitious and exciting goal: to add 200 new members between February 1 and June 30, 2026. Most new members who join during this period will qualify for our membership special, which offers several additional free months of membership for the price of 12.1 It’s one of the best opportunities of the year for attorneys to discover the value of the OCBA. Research from the National Association of Bar Executives shows that most attorneys join their bar because someone personally encouraged them to do so. Your outreach truly makes all the difference. When you share your positive OCBA experiences — whether it’s the value of our seminars, the connections made through committees, or the insights gained from networking — you help others discover resources that can elevate their practice. New members bring fresh perspectives and ideas, enriching our programs and

4 LACHES MAGAZINE

strengthening our community. Inviting others to belong also enhances civility, collaboration, and professionalism across our legal community. Strong relationships outside the courtroom support better advocacy within it. OCBA members benefit from ongoing education, timely updates on legal developments, mentorship opportunities, and a welcoming network of attorneys and judges — all of which contribute to a more collegial and effective bar. And yes, we want to thank you for helping us grow. For each attorney you refer who joins the OCBA, you’ll receive a $25 credit on your account — usable toward seminars, events, or next year’s dues. It’s simple: 1. Invite a friend or colleague to attend a meeting, seminar, or event — or simply encourage them to join. 2. They join and list you as their referrer. 3. You receive a $25 OCBA credit.

There is no limit to the number of referral credits you can receive. As we continue strengthening our community in 2026, your role as an ambassador for the OCBA is essential. By reaching out and encouraging others to belong, you help build a richer, more connected, and more vibrant bar — one that supports its members and uplifts the practice of law for all. We hope you’ll join us in this effort. Jennifer Quick is the executive director of the Oakland County Bar Association. Footnote: 1. Certain restrictions apply. Offer valid through June 30, 2026. Number of free months dependent upon which month the member joins.

and Other Privacy Law Compliance

HEALTHCARE HEALTH HEA RE LAW LA W FIRM FI

S E R V I N G

H E A LT H C A R E

F O R

O V E R

3 0

P R O V I D E R S

Y E A R S

Wachler chler & Assoc ciates represents nts hea healthcare providers, provide rs, suppliers, su liers, and an other er entities and a individua duals ls in Michi Mi higan and nationwi tionwide in all areas of he health alth law includin i ng, bu but not limited limite d to:

• Healthcare Corporate and Transactional Matters, including • Healthcare Corporate and Contracts, Corporate Formation, Transactional Matters, including Mergers, Sales/Acquisitions, and Contracts, Corporate Formation, Joint Ventures Mergers, Sales/Acquisitions, and • Joint Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Ventures Third-Party Payor Audits and • Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Claim Denials Third-Party Payor Audits and • Licensure, Staff Privilege, Claim Denials and Credentialing Matters • Licensure, Staff Privilege, • Provider ContractsMatters and Credentialing • and Reimbursement Issues • Billing Provider Contracts

• Statute (AKS), • Stark BillingLaw, andAnti-Kickback Reimbursement Issues and Fraud & Abuse Law Compliance • Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), • Physician Physician Issues and Fraudand & Abuse LawGroup Compliance • Physician Regulatory Compliance • and Physician Group Issues

• of Medicine Issues • Corporate RegulatoryPractice Compliance • Provider Participation/Termination • Corporate Practice of Medicine Issues Matters • Provider Participation/Termination • Healthcare Litigation Matters • Healthcare Healthcare Litigation Investigations • • Civil and Criminal Healthcare Fraud • Healthcare Investigations

• and Medicaid Suspensions, • Medicare Civil and Criminal Healthcare Fraud Revocations, and Exclusions • Medicare and Medicaid Suspensions, • Revocations, HIPAA, HITECH, CFR Part 2, and42 Exclusions and Other Privacy Law Compliance • HIPAA, HITECH, 42 CFR Part 2, and Other Privacy Law Compliance

S E R V I N G

H E A LT H C A R E

P R O V I D E R S

F O R O V E R 3 0 Y E A R S S E R V I N G H E A LT H C A R E P R O V I D E R S F O R

WachlerAssoc_OCBA_HalfPgV_ND20.indd 1

O V E R

3 0

Y E A R S

11/11/20 3:11 PM

CALENDAR OF EVENTS Please Note: The dates listed below were sent to the publisher on December 1, 2025. It is possible that some of the events listed below have since been altered. Please check ocba.org/events for the most up-to-date schedule of events.

FEBRUARY

BAR NIGHT OUT Warm up your winter evening with great company and conversation at our quarterly Bar Night Out mixer at MEX in Bloomfield Hills, happening from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Connect with fellow OCBA members, expand your professional network, and enjoy a selection of delicious hors d’oeuvres in a relaxed social setting. This event is free for OCBA members, but space is limited — so secure your spot today at ocba.org/events.

16 OFFICE CLOSED IN OBSERVANCE OF PRESIDENTS DAY NEW LAWYERS VS. THE BOARD CHALLENGE Every year, the New Lawyers Committee invites the OCBA’s board of directors to a competitive challenge. This year, we’ll hit the lanes at the retro-chic bowling alley Bowlero in Royal Oak. Can the New Lawyers Committee retain its title after winning last year’s Topgolf challenge, or will the board take back the coveted trophy? You don’t have to be a new lawyer or a board member to participate — you just have to pick a side! Register at ocba.org/events.

MARCH

LUNCHEON LIMINE: INSIGHTS FROM THE VISITING JUDGES Our virtual bench/bar luncheon series continues with a unique opportunity to meet and hear from two of Oakland County Circuit Court’s visiting judges, Hon. Wendi Potts (ret.) and Hon. James Alexander (ret.). They will share tips and preferred protocols for practicing in their courts. Bring your questions and join us for an informal discussion of legal topics and practice issues. Space is limited, so register today at ocba.org/events.

AFFINITY BAR CHARITY CHALLENGE Join several local and affinity bars and their guest judges as we compete to see which bar can raise the most for its charity of choice. Attendees will vote for their favorite bar association by donating cash “tips” to the association’s “tip jar.” All tips will go to the charities selected by each respective bar association. The bar association that receives the most tips will win the challenge and receive an additional donation to its charity! All net proceeds from the event will be split between all the charities. Join us and help your favorite affinity bar association to victory! Register at ocba.org/events.

DISTRICT COURT BENCH/BAR CONFERENCE Learning What You Don’t Know as a District Court Practitioner

Our highly anticipated biennial Bench/Bar Conference is back — an unmatched opportunity to strengthen connections between the bench and the bar while elevating your practice. This year’s program is designed to expand your knowledge, sharpen your skills, and keep you ahead of the curve as a district court practitioner. From mastering the essentials to exploring best practices for cutting-edge tools like AI, this conference offers practical, actionable insights you can apply immediately. Sessions will cover civil practice strategies, landlord-tenant case guidance, competency hearings, mental health referrals, effective advocacy in criminal cases, and valuable legal aid resources to help support your clients. Whether you’re a seasoned attorney or looking to refresh your skills, you’ll leave better prepared for the complexities of district court practice. Don’t miss this chance to learn from judges, experienced practitioners, and experts in the field. Learn more and register at ocba.org/dcbb.

6 LACHES MAGAZINE

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT & CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION Expand Your Knowledge with These Great Seminars!

FEBRUARY

7 p.m.) nt Base (5:30 – owing Your Clie Gr s: ur Ho ee e itt bl m lla m Beyond Bi velopment Co e Professional De s development A seminar from th tion and busines M ica BD un in m Ra o m , co ed n Re pe e connections int lp you shar Presenters: John how to turn onlin n seminar will he rn rso lea ks pe ll or wi intw e ts ne tiv an l ac rra cip This inter and refe ce-to-face. Parti grow their client d build ting with peers fa portunities, and op g tice new skills an kin ac or skills while connec pr tw to ne e e tim ag g er kin lev or s, tw hip ne ions dicated meaningful relat conclude with de The session will e. nc de nfi co th wi nal connections. valuable professio m.) (11:30 a.m. – 1 p. d Jury Selection an ns io at ar ep Mastering Trial Pr inted counsel epainal defense appo for effective trial pr w Firm PLLC A seminar for crim ey, The Gracey La practical strategies ac th ntial Gr te wi l S. po se th un tify di co en Ju e id : Presenters se narrative, pointed defens ca g ap on uip str a eq ll ild wi r bu ea ina tools to str mlearn how to This focused sem ve with concrete n. Participants will lea ll tio wi s lec se ee y nd jur te At ive jurors. ration and persuas that connects with conduct voir dire advocate. to y ad re d weaknesses, and an sel trial confident r te en d an appointed coun ion r at fo line prepar ining credit tra al in im cr of Worth 1.5 hours – 7 p.m.) larization (5:30 kplaces Amid Po or W e siv clu In d : Maintaining strative Office, an t Committee Bridging Divides nal Developmen ate Court Admini St sio r, es ce of ffi Pr O e y th lit m bi A seminar fro ess and Accounta ll B. Brown, Fairn of Pennsylvania Presenters: Zene st Judicial District Fir r, ce ffi O I n. Circuit Court DE Chief owing polarizatio or, Sixth Judicial at str Creadell Webb, ini m Ad t unication amid gr ur m Co m h, co nc e ns Ly tiv tio d ec sa ar er eff lt conv Moderator: Rich re and strengthen d navigate difficu ines how to resto es, rebuild trust, an vid and stronger prodi , ge ion id This seminar exam lus br inc to n, tical strategies r collaboratio ac ste pr fo rn to lea ols ll r early for this to wi th ts ste Participan s will leave wi uraged to regi ee co nd te en e At ar ts. rs en be cli d A mem with colleagues an environment. OCB ips in a complex sh ion lat re al ion ss fe sential discussion. engaging and es

MARCH

a.m. – 1 p.m.) r Conference (8 Ba h/ ioner nc Be t ur District Co strict Court Practit n’t Know as a Di Do u Yo t ha . Trebilcock, W g Learnin n. Christopher M ent event Ho pm d lo an ve t, ur de l Co na e prem A special professio od, Michigan Su h and Justice Noah P. Ho ect with the benc Special Guests: portunity to conn als op pe cacy, ue vo Ap iq ad of l t un a ur ina th Co im Michigan civil and cr ce returns wi on en s er ht nf ig Co ins e r al Ba tic h/ ol ac e. Gain pr emerging to s lik Our biennial Benc strict court practic s, legal aid, and di ce ur ur so yo e re g h Se nin . alt he eld he l in the ﬁ bar while strengt y hearings, menta ners, and experts atters, competenc rienced practitio pe ex s, ge jud landlord-tenant m m fro is chance to learn ining AI. Don’t miss th s of criminal tra rg/dcbb. .o ba oc at r ste rth up to 3 hour gi re wo d e an ar p ns eu io lin ss ll se the fu iminal ssion and two cr Main plenary se l. se ted coun credit for appoin 1 p.m.) e Bench (Noon – Insights from th : cy ca ee Young, itt vo m Ad m te Appella lopment Co Hon. Adrienne N. . Trebilcock, and Professional Deve e M th er m ph fro to r ris ina Ch m A se tel, Hon. tical : Hon. Sima G. Pa ges sharing prac Judicial Panelists urt of Appeals jud als Co e pe an tic ig Ap ac ich of pr t M te ur e lla aturing thre Michigan Co s how appe panel will discus virtual program fe ey e th ur Th lls ho . ecy tfa ca pi on is vo on th ad m Join com al appellate r arguments, and d oral ive written and or ues help or hinde niq n, brief writing, an ch tio insights on effect te lec ive se as ue rsu iss e pe ov at pr wh , im rk to wo ce al an differs from tri in actionable guid Attendees will ga continue to see. argument.

Learn more and register at ocba.org/events www.ocba.org

FEATURE | MIDC

Spotlight on MIDC Standards 6 and 7 By Pete Menna and Nicole M. Smithson

025 was a capstone year for the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission standards. With the last two standards taking effect last year, the regulatory structure is now fully in place, and it is up to local indigent defense systems1 to maintain that structure and implement those standards moving forward.

There are nine MIDC standards, all of which are available on the MIDC’s website.2 This article focuses on Standard 6, which is the standard governing indigent defense workloads, and Standard 7, which requires indigent defense systems to establish qualification and review standards for all appointed attorneys.

STANDARD 6

How many cases can an appointed attorney take?3 Until this year, the answer to that question has been “however many they want.” Oakland County, like many other indigent defense systems in Michigan, has historically used a roster of independent contractors to handle appointed criminal cases. There has been an increasing realization over the past several decades that a system that allows those attorneys to take as many cases as they want can result in attorneys’ not having enough time to devote to each individual case. Standard 6 changes this by limiting the number of cases that can be assigned to appointed attorneys in any 365-day period. By its strict terms, Standard 6 sets a cap only on the number of felony and misdemeanor cases, but the MIDC has recognized that some further differentiation is needed to accommodate other assignment types. Take shift hours as an example. An attorney who handles a six-hour arraignment shift is not appointed to continue on any of those cases, but there must be some way to account for that work. So the MIDC has set an annual maximum of 1,856 shift hours. The caseload numbers in Standard 6 are proportional, meaning that if

8 LACHES MAGAZINE

an attorney takes work in one category, that also decreases the attorney’s overall ability to take work in the other categories on a proportional basis. Here is a table showing the Standard 6 caseload limits: 150 felonies 400 nontraffic misdemeanors 800 traffic misdemeanors 800 probation violations 1,856 docket hours

(one case (one case (one case (one case (one hour

= = = = =

0.667% of limit) 0.25% of limit) 0.125% of limit) 0.125% of limit) 0.054% of limit)

Under the auspices of the MIDC, we are working on a pilot project in our region (Lapeer, Macomb, Oakland, and St. Clair counties) to share consolidated caseload data. Appointed attorneys may work in multiple different systems, and it is important that we do our best to capture each attorney’s total appointed caseload.

STANDARD 7

There are two components to Standard 7. The first pertains to attorney “qualifications.” Outside of Michigan, most jurisdictions do not have requirements for serving as appointed counsel beyond being a licensed attorney in good standing. Standard 7 sets a required experience level for different categories of cases, with the understanding that indigent defense systems should have the ability to make exceptions to those levels in appropriate circumstances.

MIDC | FEATURE Here is a table showing the requirements that attorneys must meet to be appointed to various case levels: Case Type

Years of Practice

Number of Trial

Exception

Misdemeanor

None

1 (bench/co-counsel OK)

Equivalent experience and similar skills

Low-Severity Felony

2 (co-counsel OK, one must be jury)

Same as misdemeanor

High-Severity Felony

4 (co-counsel OK, all must be jury)

Signiﬁcant record of consistently high-quality criminal trial court representation

Life Offense

7 (all must be jury as lead counsel)

Same as high-severity felony

Saying that an attorney is “qualified” to handle a case is one thing. But Oakland County’s mission is to ensure that all of our attorneys provide competent, caring, and effective legal representation. So how do we make sure that someone who seems qualified to do the work continues to serve that mission? The United States Supreme Court recognized in Strickland v. Washington that defendants are entitled to the effective assistance of counsel.4 But the court has not provided much guidance about how effective assistance should be provided beyond acknowledging that attorneys owe their clients a duty of loyalty, a duty to avoid conflicts, a duty of advocacy, a duty to consult with them on important issues in the case, a duty to investigate, a duty to keep them informed, and a duty “to bring to bear such skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial testing process.”5 Oakland County wants more for the people receiving appointed counsel. Standard 7 requires all indigent defense systems to monitor and regularly assess the quality of the representation provided by appointed counsel. The practice of evaluating attorney performance reflects decades of research and is “an effort to raise the requirement of effective assistance of counsel above the minimal constitutional floor” set by Strickland “under which courts have tolerated attorneys who have been asleep, drunk or under the influence of drugs or mental illness, conducted no preparation, or had no familiarity or experience with criminal law — even in death penalty cases.”6 When an evaluator observes a concern about an attorney’s performance, the evaluator brings the issue to the attorney’s attention. The evaluator can offer tools for remedying the concern when necessary, and, in dire cases, the evaluator can see that the attorney does not get additional assignments.7 Standard 7 does not require indigent defense systems to adopt any specific evaluation structure. As long as evaluations are done by peers in the criminal defense community and allow for stakeholder feedback, a system will meet the minimum requirements. But Oakland County saw Standard 7 as an opportunity to develop a comprehensive, transparent evaluation process. We want to evaluate our attorneys rigorously, but in turn we are committed to providing them with the materials and metrics used in the evaluations so there are no secrets or surprises. Last fall, Oakland County hired its attorney evaluator for roster attorney performance, Nicole M. Smithson (not to be confused with Nichole L. Smithson, who is an attorney on our roster and is not related). Nicole began evaluating roster attorneys8 in February 2025. By interlocal agreement, Nicole also serves as the evaluator for the non-county-funded district courts in Oakland County. As of November 1, 2025, more than 70 evaluations have been completed. By the time you read this article in February 2026, the number will likely be over 100. When designing an evaluation scheme, Oakland County looked to public defense offices with established attorney evaluation programs. In so

doing, two things became clear. First, we needed to identify the competencies necessary for delivering effective legal services. Second, we needed to adopt guidelines that we could use to measure attorney performance. In general, performance guidelines help defense attorneys provide high-quality representation and promote professionalism.9 Attorneys can use performance guidelines as a checklist or a step-by-step guide for how to practice at each phase of a case.10 Performance guidelines “alert defense counsel to courses of action that may be necessary, advisable, or appropriate,” and they are an objective measure for evaluating attorney performance.11 In addition to increasing the quality of representation, performance standards can be adopted at no cost.12 We didn’t reinvent the wheel. With some small modifications and a few amendments, we adopted the National Legal Aid and Defender Association’s Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation.13 Our identified areas of competency largely came from the Office of the Ohio Public Defender.14 It is important to note that despite Standard 7’s evaluation requirement, Oakland County does not supervise roster attorneys or control their practice. Additionally, the performance guidelines explicitly state that they “are not a substitute for an attorney’s professional judgment. As the guidelines frequently acknowledge, there may be times when it is better for the client if the attorney does not follow a guideline.” At their core, evaluations involve conveying observations and suggestions. We do not direct attorneys on what to do in specific cases, but we do help attorneys gain a comprehensive picture of their practice so that they can identify areas of potential improvement. Each month, Nicole selects 10 attorneys to review. Each attorney

www.ocba.org

FEATURE | MIDC a low bar under Strickland. We believe that by identifying and discussing potential problem areas with attorneys, we can help them become better and more compassionate advocates. The goal of every evaluation is to support attorney growth. Evaluations are never meant to be punitive, though it is undeniable that attorneys with very poor performance who cannot be rehabilitated will be removed from our roster. More often than not, though, our evaluations confirm and reinforce the excellent representation that our attorneys are providing. Attorney responses to the program have been mixed. Some attorneys see the process as unnecessary, intrusive, and time-consuming. Other attorneys have expressed deep appreciation for the feedback. We have begun including an anonymous survey along with each evaluation report so attorneys can give us feedback on the process and hopefully provide some great new suggestions that we can look to implement in the future.

CONCLUSION

The full implementation of MIDC Standards 6 and 7 brings Michigan that much closer to being a model for the rest of the country. They aren’t perfect — none of the MIDC standards are — but it’s easy to lose sight of how far we have come as a state in the last decade. Now that all the MIDC standards are in effect, the future of indigent defense in Michigan looks bright indeed. Pete Menna is the chief attorney of the Oakland County Indigent Defense Services Office, a position he has held since the office’s inception in October 2021. Prior to that, Menna served in Oakland County’s Office of Corporation Counsel and the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office. Nicole M. Smithson is the Oakland County Indigent Defense Services Office’s principal attorney for compliance with Standards 6 and 7. She previously served as the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission’s regional manager for the Lapeer, Macomb, Oakland, and St. Clair regions. submits a report about their experience and issues that might have come up during the past three years. (Evaluations are required to be done at least once every three years.) The attorney also submits a writing sample. Nicole then observes the attorney in court at least twice. She searches for the attorney’s name in LexisNexis and checks with the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board to see if the attorney has any disciplinary history. She surveys judges and prosecutors about the attorney’s performance. She looks at the continuing legal education courses the attorney has completed. When available, she also reviews some of the attorney’s submitted payment invoices. Once she has reviewed all of this information, she schedules an interview with the attorney. During this interview, she discusses three of the attorney’s closed appointed cases to gain further insight into their approach to those cases. She also tells the attorney what she learned during her investigation and makes any suggestions for improved performance going forward. After the interview, Nicole submits a report to the system managers for any Oakland County system in which the attorney receives appointed cases. On the rare occasion when an attorney on Oakland County’s roster does not meet performance expectations, Nicole will submit a proposed performance improvement plan to the attorney and the chief attorney of the Indigent Defense Services Office. For attorneys not on Oakland County’s roster, a PIP is not prepared, but, of course, the manager of that particular system has the authority to take appropriate action to ensure that the attorney’s performance improves. Hopefully it is clear that our evaluations are more comprehensive than simply looking at the “ineffective assistance of counsel” standard, which is

10 LACHES MAGAZINE

Footnotes: 1. Under the MIDC Act, MCL 780.981, et seq., an indigent defense system is the funding unit for a trial court. Oakland County is the indigent defense system for the Sixth Circuit Court and the four divisions of the 52nd District Court. 2. michiganidc.gov/standards 3. Authors’ note: We cringe anytime we hear someone say “court-appointed attorney.” MIDC Standard 5 took effect over four years ago. The courts no longer appoint attorneys in adult criminal cases. 4. 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). 5. Id. at 688. 6. Wallace, S. & Carroll, D. (2004). The Implementation and Impact of Indigent Defense Standards. 31 Southern University Law Review 245, 267-68 (footnotes omitted). 7. Richards McConville, C. (2005). Protecting the right to effective assistance of capital postconviction counsel: The scope of the constitutional obligation to monitor counsel performance. 66 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 521, 529-30. 8. A portion of our caseload is assigned to the Oakland County Public Defender’s Ofﬁce. The chief public defender is responsible for evaluating the performance of her employee attorneys. 9. Blackburn, J. & Marsh, A. (2011). Performance guidelines for non-capital criminal defense representation: The new performance guidelines in criminal cases: A step forward for Texas criminal justice. 74 Texas Bar Journal 616, 617. 10. Id. 11. State Bar of Texas Board of Directors (2022). Standing committee on legal services to the poor in criminal matters: Performance guidelines for non-capital criminal defense representation. 85 Texas Bar Journal 273. 12. Bernhard, A. (2010). Anatomy of a public defender system: Raising the bar: Standards-based training, supervision, and evaluation. 75 Missouri Law Review 831, 840-842. 13. oakgov.com/government/indigent-defense-services/attorney-performance-standards. 14. Id.

MCL Amendment | FEATURE

EARLY DISCHARGE FROM PROBATION IN MICHIGAN:

How the Amendment to MCL 771.2 Changed the Law By Loren Dickstein and Kennedy Simerau

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

robation was meant to promote rehabilitation, yet many Michigan judges routinely impose lengthy supervision terms without considering whether extended oversight actually serves that goal. Before 2021, probationers had little chance to earn early release unless they could afford a lawyer to petition the court. As a result, many defendants served needlessly long terms, increasing the risk of violations for minor mistakes and draining public resources that could have been better spent elsewhere. The 2021 amendment to MCL 771.2, Michigan’s probation statute, marked a significant step by the state Legislature in changing that dynamic. The change created a guaranteed “half-time” review and pathway for early discharge, thereby giving deserving probationers a fair opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation, thereby reducing the burden on the courts and the probation system. While this statute is generally a positive move toward criminal reform in Michigan, it has prompted some confusion regarding a subclass of criminal defendants who are specifically excluded from the amended provision of the statute. www.ocba.org

FEATURE | MCL Amendment The 2021 amendment to MCL 771.2 reformed probation in a way that finally gave people a fair chance to move on with their lives. The changes reshaped how courts handle probation, including the duration and circumstances under which it can be terminated early. For the first time, defendants who have demonstrated consistent compliance and rehabilitation are eligible for a formal review to consider early discharge. What was once entirely at the discretion of the courts became a structured opportunity to recognize rehabilitative progress and reduce unnecessary supervision. To understand the impact of these reforms, it is helpful to examine how probation operates in Michigan. The amended statute allows probation for many misdemeanor and felony offenses. A judge may impose probation when satisfied that the defendant is unlikely to reoffend and that justice does not require the full sentence allowed by law. Judges may order a period of confinement before supervision commences. Probation plays a central role in Michigan’s criminal justice system, and the scale of its use makes the recent reforms all the more significant. According to the Michigan Joint Task Force on Jail and Pretrial Incarceration, Michigan had the sixth-highest rate of individuals on community supervision in the United States. With so many people under probation oversight, thousands consume valuable court resources and risk jail time for technical violations that often stem from ordinary human error rather than defiance. Against that backdrop, the creation of a half-time review represents a major shift in how courts administer probation. Now, defendants have a clear path to potentially reduce excessive supervision and the penalties that result from minor, unintentional mistakes. Despite the reform’s clear purpose, its application across Michigan courts has been unbalanced. The amendment to MCL 771.2 has created confusion about who qualifies for early termination of probation. Some judges interpret the statute narrowly, excluding defendants who should be eligible, while others apply it more broadly. These inconsistent interpretations have led to unequal outcomes across jurisdictions, depriving defendants of the relief that the law was intended to provide. Despite some rulings to the contrary, the amendment did not eliminate a judge’s traditional discretion to review and terminate probation early. It simply introduced a mandatory review process for certain cases while carving out exceptions for specified offenses that are not entitled to automatic consideration. The following sections examine how these disparities developed and their impact on probationers across the state.

12 LACHES MAGAZINE

IMPACT ON CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS SEEKING EARLY DISCHARGE

For defendants on probation, the chance to earn early discharge can be life-changing. The required review at the halfway point of a probation term carries real weight for those serving long periods of supervision. A chance to seek early termination can shorten months or even years of court oversight, lowering costs for both defendants and the judicial system. It also reduces the risk of violations and incarceration that too often result from a lack of financial resources and minor mistakes made despite genuine efforts to comply. To ensure that opportunity is not overlooked, MCL 771.2(2) requires judges, much to some of their chagrin, to advise all defendants at sentencing of their right to a compliance review at the midpoint of supervision. The statute provides that once defendants have completed half of the original probation term, they may be eligible for early discharge, subject to limited exceptions. It also mandates that judges provide defendants with notice of their eligibility and the procedure for requesting review. By establishing a straightforward process and defined timeline, the law promotes accountability and rehabilitation by giving probationers a concrete goal to work toward. It also brings fairness to indigent defendants who previously had no practical way to seek early termination without hiring private counsel, ensuring that the opportunity for relief no longer depends exclusively on financial means.

THE PROCESS OF SEEKING EARLY TERMINATION

The process for seeking early termination begins under MCL 771.2(3). When a person on probation substantially completes all required programming, the probation department may notify the sentencing court that the individual qualifies for early discharge. The probationer may submit the request directly to the court using the State Court Administrative Office form if the department does not provide notice and the person has had no violations in the preceding three months. In support of the request, probationers may also submit letters of support, employment records, treatment certificates, or other evidence of rehabilitation to demonstrate their progress and commitment to change. Although this procedure establishes a clear path for eligible defendants, it does not limit a judge’s authority to grant early discharge at any time. The law expressly preserves that discretion, even for those who are not eligible for the formal halfway review process. After the probation department or the probationer submits a request for early discharge under Subsection (3), responsibility shifts to the court. Under MCL 771.2(5), the sentencing judge may review the case and the probationer’s conduct to

determine whether their behavior warrants early discharge. If the judge finds sufficient progress, the court may grant release from probation without holding a hearing. The statute’s repeated use of the word “may” confirms that judicial discretion in these cases remains broad, though not without limits. When a judge exercises that discretion to deny early discharge, the statute sets clear procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and accountability. If the court decides not to grant early discharge after reviewing a request under Subsection (5), the process does not end there. Subsection (6) of MCL 771.2 requires the court to hold a hearing before the judge denies relief. Under that provision, “if after reviewing the case under subsection (5), the court determines that the probationer’s behavior does not warrant an early discharge, the court must conduct a hearing to allow the probationer to present his or her case for an early discharge and find on the record any specific rehabilitation goal that has not yet been achieved or a specific, articulable, and ongoing risk of harm to a victim that can only be mitigated with continued probation supervision.” This provision is notable because it shifts from permissive to mandatory, ensuring that probationers have a chance to be heard and that any denial is supported by explicit findings based on objective facts. By negative implication, if the court cannot identify a specific rehabilitative goal that remains unachieved, it must grant early discharge. In addition to these general procedures, the statute imposes extra requirements in cases involving identified victims. MCL 771.2(7) mandates that the sentencing court hold a hearing before granting early release to a defendant under supervision for a felony involving a victim who has requested notice under the William Van Regenmorter Crime Victim’s Rights Act or to a probationer convicted of specific misdemeanor offenses, including domestic violence (MCL 750.81), aggravated domestic violence (MCL 750.81a), or fourth-degree child abuse (MCL 750.136b). The notice requirement for victims applies only to felonies, whereas the hearing requirement is mandatory for the listed misdemeanors, resulting in somewhat incongruous outcomes. In practice, these hearings often make early termination more difficult, even for defendants who have demonstrated unmistakable progress in rehabilitation. A hearing invites prosecutorial involvement and gives victims an opportunity to speak, which can weigh heavily on judges who hear renewed expressions of anger or pain stemming from the original offense. Many defendants also struggle in that setting; they lack courtroom experience, feel intimidated speaking before a judge, or do not know how to present evidence of their progress effectively. For these

MCL Amendment | FEATURE reasons, even deserving probationers may find it more challenging to obtain relief when a hearing is required.

PRACTICAL BARRIERS AND JUDICIAL RESISTANCE

Go it alone or retain a lawyer? The statute now provides every defendant, regardless of income, with a defined process to request early discharge without the need for counsel. That accessibility is a major improvement over the past, when those who could afford a lawyer had the greatest chance of obtaining relief. Still, navigating the process without representation carries risk. A defendant may have only one meaningful opportunity to persuade the court, and a poorly presented request can be challenging to recover from. Skilled counsel can frame the petition strategically, anticipate judicial concerns, and present the strongest evidence of rehabilitation to support the client’s case. For these reasons, hiring a lawyer to seek early discharge from probation is often a prudent investment. Even with strong advocacy, much still depends on the judge. Some of the more seasoned jurists began their tenure on the bench at a time when sentencing focused on punishment and deterrence rather than rehabilitation. Old habits die hard, and a few have found creative ways to preserve the old approach. By increasing — and sometimes doubling — the length of probation they impose, these judges ensure that even with an early discharge, defendants still serve about as long as they would have before the statute was amended. The modern view takes a different path, aiming to use limited judicial resources more efficiently through shorter, goal-oriented supervision that supports rehabilitation. When those philosophies clash, the statute’s goal of meaningful consideration of early termination can quickly lose its effect.

INELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES

The half-time review, as mandated by MCL 771.2(3), does not apply to every defendant on probation. Under Subsection (10), individuals convicted of certain serious or violent crimes are excluded from consideration for early discharge under the amended provision. These offenses include: • Domestic violence, aggravated domestic violence, or any other offense involving domestic violence (MCL 750.81, 750.81a). • Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, assault by strangulation or suffocation, or related violations arising out of the same conduct (MCL 750.84). • Stalking (MCL 750.411h) or aggravated stalking (MCL 750.411i).

• Criminal sexual conduct in the second degree (MCL 750.520c) or fourth degree (MCL 750.520e). • Any “listed offense” under Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act (MCL 28.722). • Any offense in which a defense of insanity was asserted under MCL 768.36. • Human trafficking offenses under MCL 750.462a-750.462h or the former §§ 462i-462j of that act. Defendants on probation for one of these offenses are excluded from the mandatory half-time review process and are not eligible to seek early termination under MCL 771.2(6) or (7). Still, this does not mean that early discharge is entirely off the table. The statute continues to recognize the court’s long-standing authority to grant relief at its discretion, a principle that remains intact following the 2021 amendments and is examined in the next section.

PRESERVATION OF TRADITIONAL JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

The amendments to MCL 771.2 have created confusion and disagreement among judges, leading to inequitable treatment of probationers across Michigan. While the 2021 changes established a clear half-time review point, some judges have interpreted the statute as limiting their traditional discretion and authority to grant early discharge outside the new framework. This uncertainty has been most pronounced in serious and violent cases, where courts differ on whether the amendment eliminated or preserved their discretion to terminate probation early in deserving cases. Despite this uncertainty, most defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges agree that a court’s traditional authority to grant early discharge in all cases remains intact. MCL 771.2(3) explicitly provides that “this subsection does not prohibit the court from considering a probationer for early discharge from probation at the court’s discretion.” That language confirms that the Legislature did not intend to limit judicial authority in cases excluded from the half-time review process. The amendment simply added a structured review point for most felony and misdemeanor probationers; it did not replace the courts’ long-recognized discretion to terminate probation early in other cases when appropriate. This preserved discretion operates separately from the procedures in subsections (6) and (7). The relief available under MCL 771.2(3) differs from the mandatory notice and review process established by those provisions. Unlike the structured half-time review, Subsection (3) offers a purely discretionary avenue that generally arises only when a defendant files a motion seeking relief. Defendants convicted of offenses ineligible

for half-time review are therefore not entirely barred from early termination; they can still petition the court directly under Subsection (3), relying on the same case law that recognized judicial discretion before the 2021 amendments. For these defendants, the real challenge is persuading some judges that this discretion still exists and should be exercised.

CONCLUSION

The 2021 changes to MCL 771.2 benefit many, though not all, defendants. By establishing a guaranteed half-time review point, the statute provides a more transparent and equitable pathway to early discharge. It shortens supervision for those who have shown meaningful rehabilitation and consistent compliance with probation conditions. For the first time, defendants without the means to hire private counsel have a clear, structured process to seek early termination on their own, something that did not previously exist. Early termination also limits the risk of technical violations during extended probation periods that often arise from ordinary human error, even among those making every effort to comply. At the same time, MCL 771.2(3) preserves judicial discretion, ensuring that even defendants excluded from the new half-time review process retain a legitimate opportunity for early release. Taken together, these reforms strike a practical balance between accountability and opportunity, advancing both justice and efficiency. Loren Dickstein, founding partner of Lewis & Dickstein, PLLC, leads one of Michigan’s premier criminal defense law firms with associate attorney Kennedy Simerau. Dickstein, a seasoned trial lawyer with extensive experience in state and federal courts, has achieved dismissals and acquittals in complex cases throughout Michigan. Simerau, a graduate of Wayne State University Law School, brings strong research, writing, and advocacy skills to the firm’s team-oriented approach to providing zealous and effective criminal defense representation.

www.ocba.org

FEATURE | Problem-Solving

PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS:

How Collaboration and Compassion Are Reshaping the Courts and the Criminal Defendant By Alexandra M. Giuliani

racticing criminal defense is, in many ways, twofold. We are not only legal advocates — we are often part counselor, part therapist, and, sometimes, the first person to truly listen to our clients’ struggles. The courtroom may be where the case is fought, but the real work begins long before that, in the conversations where we seek to understand why our clients are standing before the court in the first place.

14 LACHES MAGAZINE

Problem-Solving | FEATURE

There has been a growing recognition that criminal defense must go beyond traditional advocacy. Some call this the “holistic approach” — a method that addresses not only the legal charge but also the social, psychological, and economic factors that contribute to criminal behavior. This evolution reflects a broader understanding that sustainable change comes from treating the person, not just the problem. This perspective reminds us that the most meaningful advocacy happens when we help clients rebuild their lives, not merely resolve their cases. Attorney Ray Cassar, one of my early mentors and my boss, often reminds clients, “The big picture is your life, and the little picture is the case.” That perspective has always stayed with me. It reminds us that our work isn’t just about resolving a criminal charge — it’s about helping our clients rebuild the parts of their lives that brought them to this point in the first place. The “big picture” requires us to look beyond the criminal conduct and focus on how to help our clients get their lives back on track. More often than not, that means addressing the underlying issues — unhealthy substance use, mental health struggles, trauma, or instability — that led them to the criminal justice system. When we approach cases with that mindset, we begin to see our role differently: not just as defenders of liberty but as facilitators of change. That’s where Michigan’s problem-solving courts come in. These specialty courts, including sobriety court, adult treatment court, mental health court, and veterans treatment court, are designed to address the root causes of criminal behavior through structured treatment, accountability, and support. They represent a holistic approach to justice, one that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment and seeks to restore lives rather than simply process cases. As practitioners, we have the unique opportunity to connect our clients with these programs and, in many instances, witness their transformation firsthand. I have seen firsthand the transformative impact these courts often have on the lives of participants. They not only keep individuals structured and on task but also provide the guidance and support to help get these individuals through their issues. When I first started practicing eight years ago, there were subtle mentions of sobriety courts, and as my practice has evolved over the years, I am seeing an increase in treatment courts throughout the district and circuit courts. This is a positive trend in the right direction, and practitioners should be addressing their clients’ potential to gain admittance into these specialty courts.

Michigan’s first problem-solving courts emerged in the early 2000s. What began as a handful of experimental drug courts has since expanded into a robust statewide network addressing issues from substance use to mental health to veterans’ reintegration. Today, the Michigan Supreme Court and State Court Administrative Office oversee and evaluate these programs to ensure consistency, accountability, and measurable success. Former Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Elizabeth T. Clement has long been a champion of Michigan’s problem-solving courts. During her tenure, she served as the court’s liaison to these specialty programs and consistently underscored their proven success in reducing recidivism and transforming lives. Justice Clement often spoke about the broader, human impact of these courts, noting that they do more than resolve criminal cases. They help individuals rebuild their lives, reunite with their families, and, in turn, strengthen the safety and well-being of entire communities. While incarceration may seem like the straightforward response to criminal conduct, it does little to address the underlying causes of that behavior. The real question is whether confinement alone produces meaningful, lasting benefits for either the individual or society. Studies consistently show that it does not and that treatment-based alternatives yield far better outcomes for everyone involved. The evidence shows that problem-solving courts often provide a far more effective and lasting solution. Problem-solving courts represent a true winwin for everyone involved. For defendants, these courts offer a genuine opportunity to transform their lives and break free from the cycles that led them into the criminal justice system. For society and taxpayers, they deliver a measurable return on investment, operating at a fraction of the cost of long-term incarceration while significantly reducing the likelihood of future offenses. By focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment, problem-solving courts not only change individual lives but also strengthen the communities to which those individuals return. As the number of problem-solving courts continues to grow across Michigan, each one addresses a different underlying issue that brings individuals into the criminal justice system. While their structures may vary, their shared goal remains the same: to promote accountability, treatment, and long-term change. These courts represent a shift in how we think about justice: not simply as punishment for wrongdoing but as an opportunity to heal what’s broken. In Oakland County, several of these specialty courts have become vital components of our justice

system. Among the most well established and impactful is sobriety court, also known as adult treatment court, which focuses on individuals whose struggles with alcohol or substance use have led to repeated contact with the courts.

SOBRIETY COURT/ADULT TREATMENT COURT

Sobriety court is a specialized program aimed at reducing repeat drunk-driving offenses by addressing the underlying issue of substance dependence. Modeled after adult drug courts, it combines treatment, accountability, and community involvement to promote long-term recovery. The program operates under the guidance of an advisory board that includes local citizens and advocacy groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Parents of Murdered Children, and the Traffic Improvement Association, ensuring transparency and responsiveness to community needs. Participation in sobriety court is voluntary and begins with a signed agreement committing the participant to at least 18 months of intensive supervision across four structured phases. Each phase represents measurable progress toward stability and recovery. The multidisciplinary team — consisting of the judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, probation officers, treatment providers, and community partners — works collaboratively to guide participants through this process, balancing support with accountability. In the initial phase, participants attend frequent support meetings, submit to daily alcohol and random drug testing, maintain full-time employment, and comply with a nightly curfew. Those granted restricted driving privileges must install a camera-equipped ignition interlock device to ensure community safety and reinforce responsibility. Throughout the program, participants are held to clear expectations under a structured system of incentives and sanctions designed to promote lasting behavioral change. This emphasis on accountability, combined with treatment and consistent judicial interaction, helps participants rebuild their lives while protecting public safety. Oakland County’s sobriety courts operate in the 43rd, 44th, 47th, 48th, 51st, 52-1, 52-2, 52-3, and 52-4 District Courts, with the circuit court also offering a gender-specific adult treatment court. Graduation represents a profound milestone — proof of sustained effort and change. A 10-year study reports only a 7.4% recidivism rate among graduates, with over 1,700 successful completions since 2001, demonstrating that accountability and treatment create safer communities and lasting recovery. Practice Tip: If your client falls outside the www.ocba.org

FEATURE | Problem-Solving jurisdictional boundaries of a sobriety court, don’t assume the door is closed. Always do your due diligence to explore the possibility of a transfer into a neighboring jurisdiction’s program. Many courts are willing to accept out-of-jurisdiction participants when space allows, especially when the individual demonstrates genuine motivation for recovery. A quick phone call or email to the coordinator can make all the difference. More often than not, if the court has capacity and the client is a good fit, the transfer will be welcomed, opening the door to an opportunity that might otherwise be missed. As defense attorneys, we often witness the moment when everything begins to shift. A client who once entered court hopeless now stands before the judge confident and sober, with a healthier mind and body, embracing the positive changes in their life. Those moments remind us why these programs matter. They embody the idea that accountability and redemption can coexist — that justice, when paired with compassion, produces transformation rather than punishment.

MENTAL HEALTH COURT

As criminal defense practitioners and as a society, we are seeing a steady rise in the number of individuals whose involvement with the justice system stems from untreated or undiagnosed mental health issues. These are not bad people; they are people in crisis. Too often, their symptoms go unaddressed until they manifest as behavior that brings them into courtrooms rather than treatment centers. We have a shared responsibility to respond with support, not punishment — to lift people up instead of pushing them deeper into instability. What we need are more resources, greater community awareness, and, critically, more mental health courts. Mental health courts provide participants with structure, stability, and, most importantly, treatment. In Oakland County, we are fortunate to have two such programs: the 45th District Court and the 52-1 District Court. Both exemplify the compassionate, collaborative model that defines these courts. Each operates through a multidisciplinary team that includes the judge, defense counsel, prosecutors, probation officers, case managers, and treatment providers. Participants are carefully screened for eligibility, and once accepted, they receive close supervision and individualized support that strikes a thoughtful balance between accountability and compassion — with every aspect of the program tailored to each participant’s unique needs. Participants must have an established treatment plan, maintain regular communication between their providers and probation, and often must attend support meetings such as AA, NA, SMART Recovery, or NAMI groups. Indivi-

16 LACHES MAGAZINE

duals are also required to obtain or maintain employment, pursue education or equivalent activity, and remain free of drugs and alcohol, with regular testing required, particularly for those with co-occurring substance use disorders. The goal is holistic: provide access to mental health services, substance use disorder treatment, education, and vocational support, all within a framework of accountability and compassion. Time and time again, this structure has helped individuals reclaim stability and dignity, things the traditional system too often fails to offer. Practice Tip: If your client could benefit from mental health court but the case originates outside the jurisdiction, don’t assume participation is off the table. Judge Michelle Appel’s Mental Health Treatment Court in the 45th District Court often welcomes transfer cases when capacity allows. The transferring court must agree to the transfer, but in practice, such requests are frequently granted. I’ve had success with this process in the past, and for the right client, it can make all the difference in accessing treatment,

structure, and support that might otherwise be unavailable.

VETERANS TREATMENT COURT

Veterans treatment courts represent a specialized, hybrid model that integrates the principles of both drug and mental health courts to specifically address the unique challenges faced by military veterans and, in some instances, active-duty personnel. These courts are designed to promote long-term sobriety, psychological wellness, and community reintegration by providing structured support and access to critical services. The coordinated response involves a robust collaboration between the court system, community partners, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, including both its health care networks and the Veterans Benefits Administration. Importantly, these courts also lean heavily on the strength and guidance of volunteer veteran mentors and support networks for veterans and their families. In Oakland County, the circuit court operates a veterans treatment court, and at the

Problem-Solving | FEATURE district court level, veterans courts exist in the 45th, 51st, and 52-1 District Courts. Most recently, the 52-3 District Court, under the leadership of Judge Laura Polizzi, has proudly established its own veterans treatment court. For Judge Polizzi, this initiative is deeply personal. Her brother, an Iraq War veteran, struggled with opiate addiction and faced two district court cases in which he did not have access to a veterans treatment court. Unfortunately, Judge Polizzi’s brother passed away at the young age of 31. She believes that access to such a program could have changed the trajectory of his life. Her commitment to this cause now drives her mission to ensure that other veterans do not fall through the cracks of a system that too often overlooks their service and sacrifice. Veterans treatment courts provide participants with structured opportunities to comply with treatment, secure benefits, and access services they may not have known existed or know how to navigate on their own. They emphasize ongoing engagement and close follow-up by the treatment court team, including probation officers, treatment providers, and mentors. Just as importantly, these courts prioritize incentivizing positive behaviors, helping veterans find purpose, stability, and dignity as they address the root causes of their criminal behavior. Veterans treatment court is not simply a diversion program; it is a path to recovery, redemption, and renewed hope for those who have already given so much to our country. Whether addressing addiction, mental health, or the unique challenges faced by veterans, all problem-solving courts share a common philosophy: Treat the individual as a whole. Each program recognizes that lasting change requires more than compliance — it requires dignity, purpose, and human connection. By building trust and community within the courtroom, these programs redefine what success in the justice system truly looks like.

OPERATION DRIVE

Operation Drive is one of the newest and most innovative additions to Michigan’s growing lineup of problem-solving courts. Developed by Judge Derek Meinecke in the 44th District Court, this program was created to address a persistent problem in our communities: individuals who continue to drive without valid licenses, not out of defiance but out of necessity. For many, unpaid fines, old tickets, or administrative suspensions make reinstatement feel impossible. Without a license, simple daily tasks like getting to work, school, or medical appointments become unmanageable, trapping people in a cycle of violations and financial hardship. Operation Drive breaks that cycle by guiding participants through the reinstatement process

with hands-on court and community support. Each participant begins by entering a guilty plea, with sentencing delayed under MCL 771.1, allowing time to demonstrate progress toward reinstatement. Together with the court, an individualized action plan is developed, outlining clear, attainable steps to resolve outstanding tickets, clear warrants, pay fines, and satisfy all remaining obligations. Throughout the process, the court team monitors progress, provides encouragement, and reinforces accountability as participants work toward regaining valid licensure and long-term independence. The program builds on statewide reforms prompted by the Michigan Joint Task Force on Jail and Pretrial Incarceration and championed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, including the elimination of driver responsibility fees and the end of many non-safety-related suspensions. Operation Drive translates those policy changes into practical results: safe, legal, and self-sufficient drivers. Its success lies in collaboration. Judges, magistrates, prosecutors, defense counsel, law enforcement, and the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission share a single goal: creating valid drivers, not repeat defendants. Eligible participants are typically individuals charged with traffic-related misdemeanors whose suspended or never-issued licenses stem from administrative or financial barriers rather than dangerous driving. Since its inception, other district courts across Oakland County have followed Judge Meinecke’s lead and launched their own Operation Drive programs, recognizing the profound community benefit that comes from helping people move from unlicensed to licensed, from unstable to independent, and from court-involved to self-sufficient. Judge Meinecke’s bench mate, Judge Andrew Kowalkowski, has implemented a companion program in the same court, further expanding access and continuity of support. Similar initiatives have also been established in the 52-3 District Court under Judge Polizzi and the 52-4 District Court under Judge Maureen McGinnis, reflecting a countywide commitment to promoting lawful, stable, and independent drivers. Practice Tip: If your client is facing charges related to driving on a suspended license, it’s worth exploring whether an Operation Drive program is available in your jurisdiction. These programs often welcome referrals from defense counsel and can be life-changing for clients who are otherwise safe drivers but are trapped by administrative or financial barriers. Take the time to contact the program coordinator or court staff early in the case, especially if the client’s suspension stems from older violations or multiple jurisdictions. A simple referral could be the first step in helping your client get back on the road legally and confidently.

As more courts adopt the problem-solving model, the future of Michigan’s justice system looks increasingly collaborative. Expanding access to these programs is the next vital step in ensuring equal opportunity for transformation statewide. Continued investment in training, mental health resources, and cross-court partnerships will ensure that every defendant with the motivation to change has a pathway to do so. At the end of the day, we all strive to become the best versions of ourselves. Some individuals simply need a little encouragement, a reminder that growth is possible and that one misstep does not define an entire life. When we, as a community, work together to provide that support, we foster a culture that empowers others to do the same. In a world filled with inevitable ups and downs, the true measure of strength lies not in avoiding hardship but in how we emerge from it: stronger, wiser, and more resilient. Developing healthy coping mechanisms and learning from past mistakes are essential to breaking destructive cycles and building a stable future. Compassion is at the heart of this process. The judges who preside over our treatment courts exemplify this compassion daily, pairing empathy with accountability in ways that genuinely transform lives. Their patience, understanding, and humanity create courtrooms where participants feel supported rather than condemned. That environment of trust and respect encourages openness, commitment, and lasting change. The continued success of Oakland County’s specialty courts is a powerful reminder that justice is not one-size-fits-all. Whether it’s helping a veteran reclaim stability, guiding a driver toward independence, or supporting an individual in recovery, these programs prove that accountability and compassion are not opposing forces — they are partners in progress. When we lead with both, lives are rebuilt, families are restored, and our communities become stronger for it. Alexandra M. Giuliani is a dedicated and compassionate criminal defense attorney with the Law Offices of Raymond A. Cassar, P.L.C., where she practices in both Michigan state and federal courts, representing adults and juveniles. She is a past chair of the Oakland County Bar Association’s New Lawyers Committee, serves on the Criminal Law Advisory Board for ICLE, and is a member of the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan. She can be reached at alex@ crimlawattorney.com. www.ocba.org

OCBA AT WORK The mission of the Oakland County Bar Association is to serve the professional needs of our members, enhance the justice system, and ensure the delivery of quality legal services to the public. We fulfill our mission through our 29 committees, regular networking events, and numerous educational programs for both OCBA members and the public. We work hand in hand with the OCBA volunteer board directors and members, and we partner closely with the courts. Below are recent examples of the OCBA at work in service to the bar and to the community.

Bar Night Out: Novemberfest More than 55 members gathered on November 6, 2025, at Crispelli’s in Troy for Bar Night Out: Novemberfest, a joint OCBA Membership Committee and New Lawyers Committee mixer. Guests enjoyed food, networking, and a festive atmosphere while strengthening professional connections.

Youth Law Conference On November 18, 2025, the OCBA hosted its 31st annual Youth Law Conference for more than 130 students from nine Oakland County schools. Held at the MSU Management Education Center, the program featured Judge Kwamé L. Rowe and offered teens insights into legal careers, decision-making, and real-world legal issues — plus a popular visit with the sheriff ’s K-9s and comfort dogs.

18 LACHES MAGAZINE

OCBA AT WORK New Lawyer Admissions Ceremony On November 7, 2025, about 30 new lawyers took the oath of admission at the Oakland County Courthouse in Pontiac. Judge Amanda Shelton delivered remarks as family, friends, and colleagues celebrated in person and via live stream. Each new attorney had a sponsoring lawyer, and all received complimentary first-year OCBA membership.

OCBA Committees’ In-Person Meetings OCBA committees continue to embrace in-person meetings. On November 6, 2025, the Medical/Legal Committee welcomed 16 attendees for a presentation by Richard Boothman on the “Michigan Model” for managing medical errors. On November 11, the Employment Law Committee hosted 17 participants for a panel on emerging trends in employment litigation, followed by networking and refreshments.

www.ocba.org

ON THE CIRCUIT

Should I Stay or Should I Go? By Richard Lynch

during a historic challenge. However, as one eaders will recognize that the On the reviews the data below, some marked changes Circuit column focuses on various will appear following the implementation of issues from a court perspective. The the 2022 court rule changes. If case evaluaClash reference above seems apropos for this tion will remain an option at the circuit court month’s musing on case evaluation. For when level, our community must acknowledge that one considers the changes that have occurred the changes in case evaluation present instiin case evaluation over the years and the explosion of other alternative dispute resolution tutional challenges that the court must consider. For how will the court, or the OCBA tools, one questions the value of the process. for district court case evaluations, maintain Still, before throwing the baby out with the the necessary infrastructure if participation in bath water, the process begs some level of the process continues to decrease? scrutiny regarding its ongoing utility within The chart below provides a general overthe litigation process. For the purposes of this view of the new filings in the civil docket and article, the sample size will consist solely of the participation in case evaluation for the civil cases filed in the Sixth Circuit Court for Sixth Circuit. Oakland County. A common refrain about case evaluation Depending upon where you are in your was that it was not effective. The acceptance career, your practice area, and the courts in rate for evaluated cases in 2015 was 18.7%. which you practice, I suspect that thoughts This is slightly higher than the results of the of and experiences with case evaluation Case Evaluation and Mediation in Michigan differ wildly from one attorney to the next. Circuit Courts: A Follow-up Study report comSome practitioners will recall a time when no requirements for case evaluation or mediation missioned by SCAO in 2018, which found a total acceptance rate of 15%.5 Moving existed. Newer attorneys may only recognize a landscape in which case evaluation exists forward to 2018, the year of the follow-up as one of several ADR options that parties consider early in the development of a civil case for damages.1 Given the abundance of available 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 ADR options, some readers may wonder why the court rules ever 5,766 5,419 5,867 7,606 7,682 New ﬁlings2 mandated case evaluation or the Eligible 1,829 2,084 1,871 2,207 2,710 corresponding provision for sanccases4 tions when more effective ADR tools Dispositions 69 45 89 73 79 abound. This article will consider the excluding role of case evaluation following the acceptances 2022 amendments. Civil litigation and case evalu61 70 69 68 23 Pending cases not ation numbers have fluctuated over evaluated the last decade. Readers will notice that the raw numbers below do not 1,699 1,969 1,713 2,066 2,608 Cases reflect the stark downturns of 2020 evaluated resulting from the COVID-19 panRejections 1,381 1,635 1,418 1,720 2,050 demic. I credit this to the amazing efforts of the legal system to main318 334 295 346 558 Acceptances tain levels of access to the courts

20 LACHES MAGAZINE

study, the Sixth Circuit acceptance rate fell to 16.7%. For 2025, the acceptance rate is just above 1%. On the face of it, this steady decline suggests that the value of case evaluation has decreased precipitously over the past decade. Unfortunately, the data above does not speak to the causation of the decreased effectiveness of case evaluation. One can see that participation fluctuated in the low 90th percentile during the first part of the decade before plummeting.6 It appears that at least a correlation exists when one considers the impact of the rule change and the number of cases evaluated, but I hesitate to read too much into this with the available data. So what am I saying? Quite simply, MCR 2.404(B)(2) outlines the eligibility criteria for case evaluators. If the above data trend is accurate, will courts run out of eligible candidates to serve as evaluators generally and for specialized panels in particular? This has already become a challenge for neutral evaluators for specialized panels. Another challenge becomes securing

2020

2021

2022

2023

6,486 6,140 5,818 6,340

2024

2025

6,857 5,8913

2,315 2,164 1,916

4,201 2,582 1,818

452

2,551 1,550 1,127

329

203

2,259 2,131 1,828 1,198 703

488

1,781 1,731 1,650 1,148 686

483

478

400

178

ON THE CIRCUIT cases to evaluate. Most readers who have participated in case evaluation in the Sixth Circuit know that the court schedules case evaluation panels that hear multiple cases. Over the past decade, the court has reduced the number and frequency of case evaluation panels because of the low participation rates. It has become challenging to find sufficient cases to schedule even a half-day medical malpractice panel. The Case Management Office regularly bounces cases around in an effort to secure enough cases for a half-day panel for contract or negligence cases. Neither of the issues presented speak to the collapse of civil litigation. The issues do present challenges for attorneys and parties who wish to avail themselves of case evaluation and resolve their cases in a timely manner. Collapsing panels reduces the frequency of case evaluation, and if there is only one panel a month and a case misses that panel or the panel is canceled, then other dates will almost certainly require adjournments. Judges will struggle to schedule cases and satisfy time standards. Attorneys will struggle to explain to clients why their case is delayed. In

short, the trickle-down impact of these delays will undermine public trust and confidence in the legal process. Will these issues spell the end of case evaluation? It is difficult to say. A subset of attorneys continues to utilize the process, although my information does not provide a basis to draw a conclusion on why they choose to do so. I do think that if this trend continues, the ability of stakeholders to offer case evaluation will present financial challenges that may further alter the process. Perhaps courts will collaborate to offer multijurisdictional panels virtually. Another option becomes an expansion of the current mediation/case evaluation practice, in which a mediator will also prepare a case evaluation award. Ultimately, and with apologies to The Clash, This indecision’s bugging me If you don’t want me, set me free … If I go there will be trouble And if I stay it will be double So you gotta let me know Should I cool it or should I blow?7

Richard Lynch is the court administrator for the Oakland County Circuit Court. Footnotes: 1. From this point forward, I will refer to these cases as “civil cases” while acknowledging that the universe of civil cases also includes domestic, juvenile, appeals, PPOs, ERPOs, etc. 2. The 2015-2024 information was obtained from the State Court Administrative Office Interactive Court Data Dashboard on December 1, 2025: courts.michigan.gov/publications/statistics-and-reports/interactive-court-data-dashboard. 3. The 2025 new filings number is accurate through October 31, 2025. 4. The remainder of the information in this chart was obtained from information maintained by the Case Management Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court. The 2025 numbers are accurate as of September 30, 2025. 5. courts.michigan.gov/4a9f38/siteassets/reports/ odr/2018-mediation-and-case-evaluation-study.pdf, last accessed December 1, 2025. See Figure 3-4 on p. 23. 6. Using the data in the chart above, the participation rate for 2015 was 92.8%. It increased to 93.6% in 2018 before plummeting to 26.8% to date for 2025. 7. songfacts.com/lyrics/the-clash/should-i-stay-or-shouldi-go, last accessed December 1, 2025.

Gretchen Moran Marsh, Ph.D. drmoranmarsh.com | (248) 766-0260 | gmmarsh@mac.com www.ocba.org

PROBATE

TASTE OF DIVERSITY:

Two Deserving Award Winners By Katie Tillinger

n October 16, 2025, the Diversity, as a diversity professional — earned entirely Equity and Inclusion Committee voluntarily and self-funded — demonstrates her hosted its 2025 networking event, Taste deep personal commitment to diversity. She also of Diversity, at the Great Lakes Culinary Center. contributes to state and national DEI workNearly 100 attendees gathered to celebrate and ing groups, supports civic education for youth, elevate diversity within the legal community. Lo- mentors law students, and champions inclusive cal affinity bars and law firms demonstrated their judicial clerkship pipelines through the National support by sponsoring the event and partnering Association for Law Placement. Her work is tirewith the OCBA. less, intentional, and impactful. Her dedication In addition to outstanding food and conto building a more inclusive legal community versation, the evening featured the presentation reflects Lee’s legacy and the mission this award of two awards honoring members of the legal celebrates. community who exemplify a strong, daily comThe Leon Hubbard Community Service mitment to advancing diversity. Award was established in 1994 to celebrate and The Michael K. Lee Memorial Award promote awareness of the rich cultural diversity Recognizing Diversity was established in 2015 of Oakland County. Leon Hubbard was a promin honor of past OCBA board member Michael inent attorney and civic leader in Pontiac who K. Lee. This award is to celebrate diversity and was revered as a pioneer for “human rights and promote awareness of the need for increased dignity.” Hubbard was the founding father of the diversity in the legal profession. Lee was a cham- Pontiac Area Urban League and was known as a pion for his clients, a leader in several profession- “champion for the underdog and the underprivial organizations, and a mentor who helped new leged.” This year’s award winner was Hon. Poncé attorneys as they navigated their first few years Clay of the 36th District Court. of practice. This year, the award was presented to Judge Clay was recently appointed to the Kristina Bilowus of the Michigan State Univercourt by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and was sworn sity College of Law. in on September 26, 2025. A Navy veteran, legal Bilowus is a longtime member and former professional, and tireless community advocate, chair of the OCBA DEI Committee. She has Judge Clay has devoted his career to advancing worked to build pathways for underrepresented individuals to enter and thrive in Kristina Bilowus and the legal field. She has played a key role in Judge Poncé Clay. the OCBA DEI Scholarship Committee for high school seniors and currently chairs DEI efforts for the Ingham County Bar Association. As vice president of the Women Lawyers Association of Michigan, she also leads initiatives focused on equity, belonging, and mentorship. Bilowus’s commitment goes far beyond titles. She writes widely on DEI topics, speaks on local and national panels, and creates educational programming highlighting the importance of representation and accessibility. Her certification

22 LACHES MAGAZINE

diversity, equity, and inclusion within the legal system and beyond. As former vice chair of the OCBA’s Real Estate Committee, Judge Clay expanded the committee’s reach and relevance by engaging diverse voices and fostering inclusive programming. His leadership left a lasting impact on member engagement and representation within the bar. Beyond the OCBA, Judge Clay has served as a State Bar of Michigan commissioner and as past president of the D. Augustus Straker Bar Association, where he championed mentorship, access, and systemic equity. Through his firm, Clay Law PLC — a certified service-disabled veteran-owned business — Judge Clay provided pro bono and low-cost legal services to veterans, seniors, and underserved families. His prior service as Wayne County’s director of veterans services and his involvement as a mentor on the 36th District’s Veterans Treatment Court further reflects his deep commitment to community well-being. From mentoring new attorneys to shaping legal access initiatives, Judge Clay has consistently advanced social equity and improved the quality of life for countless individuals. His work embodies the mission of the Leon Hubbard Award — and the highest ideals of the Oakland County legal community. Both Judge Clay and Bilowus embody the mission of the OCBA DEI Committee. When the legal profession reflects the communities it serves, people are more likely to believe that the system is fair, accessible, and capable of understanding their experiences. Diversity enriches workplace culture by improving collaboration, mentorship, and professional satisfaction. It is our hope that people will continue to be like these two award winners and benefit from diversity in their lives. Katie Tillinger is the deputy director of the OCBA and OCBF.

WE HELP ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS Providing individuals and businesses with the best solutions for success.

Aaron V. Burrell

OCBA President-Elect | Detroit - 313.223.3118 ABurrell@dickinsonwright.com

Elizabeth L. Luckenbach

Past OCBA & OCBF President | Troy - 248.205.5640

ELuckenbach@dickinsonwright.com

Daniel D. Quick

Past OCBA & State Bar President | Troy - 248.433.7242 DQuick@dickinsonwright.com

Lynn Capp Sirich

Past OCBF President | Troy - 248.205.3224 LSirich@dickinsonwright.com 23 OFFICES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA DICKINSONWRIGHT.COM

(4.7 out of 5 on Amazon)

What Readers Are Saying:

LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES.

Insurance Coverage Coverage Firm Firm Insurance ʻRiveting from start to ﬁnish.ʼ ʻAS SPELLBINDING AS A SUPERB NOVEL!ʼ ʻAN AMAZING STORY WELL TOLD.ʼ ʻDazzling, suspense-ﬁlled narrative.ʼ

ʻGRIPPING.ʼ ʻMesmerizing.ʼ ʻA thriller.ʼ Order Online at grandbargainbook.com

KUTINSKY.COM KUTINSKY.COM KUTINSKY.COM (248) (248) 712-1049 712-1049 (248) 712-1049

FOUNDATION

The Signature Event as the Engine for the Oakland County Bar Foundation By Andrew M. Harris

s I write this article, I look forward to seeing many of you this evening at the Townsend Hotel for the wonderfully planned and executed annual OCBA Holiday Gala. I am writing today, however, about a separate special event within our lawyer community. I had the recent privilege of attending a Giving Tuesday breakfast as a representative of the Oakland County Bar Foundation sponsored by CARE House in Pontiac. CARE House (previously profiled in LACHES) is a nonprofit advocacy center providing first-rate services to victims of child abuse through counseling, therapy, and frequent interactions with law enforcement and school systems. The breakfast included stories about the increased need for donations to CARE House in light of cuts from the federal and state governments. It also highlighted the aggravating patience needed to protect children through the legal process while a child’s safety remains in peril. More positively, CARE House’s executive director, Blythe Tyler, shared moving success

stories of children who benefited from the center’s services to escape the vicious cycle of abuse and return to a thriving upbringing. I listened while Tyler spoke, uplifted by the good work CARE House performs but feeling a renewed sense to help those in need. (If you are reading this article, you are likely able to relate easily to this sentiment.) Yes, the foundation and I were helping that morning by attending and showing support, but with such a well-run nonprofit like CARE House, our help through the foundation is not with our legal advice, professional relationship, or even event attendance — it is with our consistent and significant donation dollars. There is no more important source for the foundation’s annual fundraising to create this critical donation revenue than the Signature Event! On Wednesday, May 6, the foundation will celebrate its 27th annual Signature Event. As president, I see firsthand the significant amount of planning, deliberation, and execution by staff members and our volunteer board to ensure this fundraiser is the year-in, year-out success it’s

MISSION The Oakland County Bar Foundation’s mission is to ensure access to justice and an understanding of the law in our community. It is dedicated to: — Improving and facilitating the administration of justice in Oakland County and throughout the state of Michigan; — Ensuring to the fullest extent possible that legal services are made available to all members of the public; — Promoting legal research and the study of law as well as the diffusion of legal knowledge; — Promoting the continuing legal education of lawyers and judges; and — Educating the public as to their legal rights and obligations, and fostering and maintaining the honor and integrity of the legal profession. If you know an organization that could use assistance to pursue these goals within Oakland County, please refer them to ocba.org/ocbfgrants, where they can ﬁnd information about applying for a grant from the foundation.

24 LACHES MAGAZINE

been for decades. After considerable discussion, meetings, and even site visits, the foundation is proud to once again have the Signature Event take place at the beautiful Orchard Lake Country Club. The venue will be resplendent with delightful food, a picturesque lakeside setting (cross your fingers for good weather), and the presence of many of your colleagues in the legal field. The date of this year’s Signature Event is also, once again, strategically selected to create ample parking opportunities at the club (which, in years prior, was a challenge for many). While the aforementioned benefits of the Signature Event are wonderful, they do not include the greatest purpose, which is to fundraise for our grantees. Our latest available financial information illustrates over $194,000 in contributions generated from the Signature Event, which, again, allowed us to fulfill the foundation’s mission of providing access to justice and furthering an understanding of the law to all corners of our county. Espoused before in this space but worthy of repeating are the types of services this revenue supports, such as the following: • Legal assistance that prevents unlawful residential evictions; • Protection and services for vulnerable children and families (done through CARE House and other organizations); • Legal education and guidance for seniors; • Youth law (including the Youth Law Conference), mock trial, and career exploration programs; and • Immigration and refugee legal support. In 2025, the foundation accepted gracious donations from over 75 sponsors for the Signature Event, a figure we are looking to exceed this year for the benefit of our recipients. Sponsorship levels include platinum, gold, silver, and bronze. Every dollar received is greatly appreciated. So please, this year, if your firm or employer is not already an esteemed sponsor of the Signature Event, please encourage the leaders within your organization to donate before it’s too late. Such an effort will help answer that tug we all feel from time to time to do more and help those in need, whom the foundation is so proud to support. I sincerely hope to see you on May 6 at Orchard Lake Country Club to experience the venue’s beauty, connect with colleagues, and share in the joy of doing good in our community. Andrew M. Harris is a shareholder with Maddin, Hauser, Roth & Heller P.C. in Southfield, Michigan, where his practice includes business litigation, commercial real estate, estate planning, probate work, and property tax services. Harris is also a licensed civil mediator. He lives in Birmingham (where he was once mayor) with his wife (Tiffany), two teenage sons (Roger and Russell), and two dogs (Maizey and Blue).

IN PRO PER

Plunkett Cooney is proud to announce that Courtney A. Lavender, an appellate attorney in the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office, was recently elected as a council member of the Appellate Practice Section of the State Bar of Michigan during the section’s November 21, 2025, board meeting. She will serve a three-year term. The Appellate Practice Section Council provides education, information, and analysis on relevant appellate law issues through meetings, seminars, public service initiatives, and more. Lavender focuses her appellate practice in the areas of commercial litigation, governmental law, first- and third-party motor vehicle negligence, and insurance coverage disputes. She also has litigation experience defending no-fault and third-party claims, as well as premises liability, pet liability, and defamation matters. Lavender received her law degree, cum laude, from Wayne State University Law School in 2021. While there, she served as an extern at the school’s Office of General Counsel. Following law school, she worked as a research attorney at the Michigan Court of Appeals. Lavender received her undergraduate degree in 2017 from the University of Michigan.

ELEVATE. PRACTICE WITH CIVILITY.

Business Litigators | Business Lawyers altiorlaw.com | 248.594.5252 Our Partners | Kenneth Neuman, Jennifer Grieco, Stephen McKenney, Matthew Smith, and David Mollicone

www.ocba.org

JURY TRIALS & UTILIZATION November 2025 DATE STARTED

JUDGE

11/3/2025

Anderson

2024-208515-NI Joseph Harper v. Auto Owners Insurance Co.

Thomas Kerr Allison Smith

Personal Injury/Auto Negligence

Verdict for Plaintiff $9,199.78

11/4/2025

Cohen

2022-191965-CD James Jaines v. Eddie Merlots

Zachary Runyan Jonathan Marko Michael Edmunds

Employment Discrimination

No Cause

11/18/2025

Cohen

2024-210817-CK Henry Manuel v. Paul Nicholas

Brian Herschfus Patrick McCarthy

Contract

Verdict for Plaintiff $235,000.00 Verdict for Dft/ Counter Pltf $150,000.00

11/17/2025

Grant

2025-294022-FC People v. Williams

Kyle Heika Henry Scharg

Carjacking, Weapons Felony Firearm, CCW

Guilty as Charged

1.5

11/13/2025

Matthews

2025-293949-FC People v. Fellows

Zachary Houchin Mitchell Ribitwer

Ct. 1 AWIM, Cts. 2, 4, 6 Weapons FF, Ct. 3 Home Invasion 1st Degree, Ct. 5 Disch. FA in/at Bldg

Ct. 1 Guilty of Lesser Assault w/I GBH, Cts. 2-6 Not Guilty

1.5

11/17/2025

Rowe

2025-292434-FC People v. Williams

David Hutson Scott Kozak

Armed Robbery

Guilty as Charged

1.5

10/27/2025

Warren

2024-291767-FC People v. Dodoro

Allison Krueger Vincent Haisha

Cts. 1-4 CSC 1st Degree, Cts. 5-8 CSC 1st Degree (Relation), Ct. 9 Assault w/I. Com. Sex Penetration

Not Guilty

10/20/2025

Alexander Visiting Judge

2023-198842-CB Custom Valve Concepts Inc.v. Radiant Engineering

Michael Wais Zainab Sabbagh

Business

Verdict for Plaintiff $25,600,000.00

11/13/2015

Ronayne Krause Visiting Judge

2025-292651-FH People v. Jimenez

Kyle Heika Belem Morales

Capturing Image of Unclothed Person

Guilty as Charged

11/17/2025

Ronayne Krause Visiting Judge

2025-292306-FH People v. White

Zachary Houchin Jeffrey Schwartz

Felonious Assault

Guilty as Charged

1.5

11/10/2025

Young Visiting Judge

2024-205166-NH Laura Vanatta v. Corwell Health Inc.

Kujtim Sulolli Victoria Lehman

Medical Malpractice

Case Settled Midtrial

26 LACHES MAGAZINE

CASE NUMBER CASE NAME

ATTORNEYS

TYPE OF CASE

DISPOSITION

JURY DAYS

OCBA PEOPLE

ELEVATE. ASSOCIATION STAFF Executive Director Jennifer Quick (jquick@ocba.org) Deputy Director Katie Tillinger (ktillinger@ocba.org) Finance Director Susan Maczko (smaczko@ocba.org) Programs Manager Cristin Doble (cdoble@ocba.org) Court and Public Services Manager Janise Thies (jthies@ocba.org) Marketing Communications Specialist MB Cairns (mcairns@ocba.org) Marketing Associate Alexa Enders (aenders@ocba.org) Bookkeeper Mayly McRae (mmcrae@ocba.org) Laches and Foundation Administrator Lori Dec (ldec@ocba.org) Programs Administrator Victoria Smith (vsmith@ocba.org) Court and Public Services Administrator Melak Mardo (mmardo@ocba.org)

Unless otherwise indicated, please call (248) 334-3400 for assistance.

Address Changes........................................................ Mayly McRae Billing........................................................................... Mayly McRae Board of Directors..................................................... Jennifer Quick Case Evaluator Applications.......................................... Janise Thies Committees.................................................................Katie Tillinger District Court Case Evaluation....................................... Janise Thies Event Photos.................................................................... MB Cairns Finance....................................................................... Susan Maczko Inns of Court.................................................................Cristin Doble Judicial Candidate Fora................................................ Janise Thies Laches Magazine........................................................ Jennifer Quick Lawyer Referral Service – (248) 338-2100................... Victoria Smith Member Illness & Death Notification..........................Katie Tillinger Membership................................................................Katie Tillinger New Lawyer Admissions..............................................Katie Tillinger News Releases.................................................................. MB Cairns Oakland County Bar Foundation.................................Katie Tillinger OCBA Mediation Service.............................................. Janise Thies OCBA Policies........................................................... Jennifer Quick Pro Bono Mentor Match Program................................. Janise Thies Professional Development/CLE....................................Cristin Doble Room Rental Reservations........................................... Mayly McRae Speakers Bureau............................................................ Janise Thies Volunteer Opportunities................................................ Janise Thies Website..................................................................... Jennifer Quick

Business Litigators | Business Lawyers altiorlaw.com | 248.594.5252 Our Partners | Kenneth Neuman, Jennifer Grieco, Stephen McKenney, Matthew Smith, and David Mollicone

NEW MEMBERS in November Stephanie L. Arndt

Pandora Pando

Quentin Baur

Kinga Natalia Perkowska

Makala Borg

Emily Jordan Pierce

Tanya Candido

Karen Plants

Aubrey L. Carr

Lily Rzepkowski

Kathleen Cindric

Rachel Leafy Dembinski

Cameron Marie Collins

Schulte

Jonathan M. Colman

Fady Abdullah Shehadeh

Alexander Richard Coryell

Brendan Sullivan

Francis Doud

Caroline E. Swaim

Marcella Eid

Matthew Thomas Swazer

Danielle C. Fink

Jason Alan Thomas

Peter James Florian

Alexis Tillery

Mason Gill

Daniella Zeki Toma

Kyle Robert Gineman

Lena Vushaj

Kevin Gorica

Kate Wigent

Andrew Kilcline

Hailey Ann Wolf

Tristan Koch

Kevin P. Yombor

Kyle S. Krywko

Badri Yono

Jennifer Mellas

Rojan Sameer Yousif

Nichole Marie Mitchell

Robert Arthur Zink

Laura Neme www.ocba.org

ADJOURNED Taste of Diversity Reception More than 100 colleagues and members of local affinity bar associations joined the October 16, 2025, Taste of Diversity reception, celebrating the multicultural strength of our legal community. Guests enjoyed lively conversation, hors d’oeuvres, and camaraderie at the Great Lakes Culinary Center in Southfield. The evening honored Hon. Poncé D. Clay with the Leon Hubbard Community Service Award and Kristina Bilowus with the Michael K. Lee Memorial Award. Hosted by the OCBA Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee, the event brought together area affinity bars to promote collaboration and advance diversity in the profession. Participating organizations included the Armenian American Bar Association, D. Augustus Straker Bar Association, Detroit Bar Association, Hispanic Bar Association, Incorporated Society of Irish American Lawyers, Jewish Bar Association of Michigan, Michigan Asian Pacific American Bar Association, and the Women’s Bar Association.

Pictured left to right: Chanel Taylor, Shalini Nangia, and Katherine Strickfaden.

Pictured left to right: Darnell Smith, Hon. Poncé Clay, Kristina Bilowus, Sarah Kuchon, and Aaron Burrell.

Pictured left to right: Jennifer Henderson, Nicole Gettler, Kristina Bilowus, and Christopher Wickman.

Pictured left to right: Darius Dynkowski, Hon. Denise Langford Morris (ret.), and Mina Zaky.

Pictured left to right: Heather Muir, Reginald Pacis, and Hon. Cynthia Arvant.

Pictured left to right: Katie Brown, Arturo Alfaro, and Mina Zaky.

Pictured left to right: Hon. Angelena Thomas-Scruggs and Landon Reid.

Pictured left to right: Tatianna Gore and Noah Mathews.

Pictured left to right: Debani Gordon Lehman, Kristin Fernandez, Natasha Rao, Dandridge Floyd, Mary Aretha, Nicole Huddleston, Hon. Poncé Clay, Hon. Kameshia Gant, Zenell Brown, Vassal Johnson, Lanita Carter, and Shane Kolo.

28 LACHES MAGAZINE

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

You spend your life building your property and business rights. We spend ours protecting those rights. Business, Real Estate, Construction, and Employment Litigation. 115 N. Center Street, Northville, MI 48167 248-924-3349 · kpn@tblaw.com www.tblaw.com · www.kevinpnelson.com

Number 685 | February 2026

LACHES

Oakland County Bar Association 1760 S. Telegraph, Suite 100 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302-0181

If you are receiving duplicates of this magazine, please call the OCBA at (248) 334-3400.

We are trial lawyers who pursue justice for those whose lives have been shattered by the misconduct and malpractice of others.

> Catastrophic injury cases > Malpractice litigation > Auto claims

248-540-3333 www.googasian.com The Googasian Firm, P.C. 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 140 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301 (248) 540-7213 (fax) contact@googasian.com

Nearly all our clients come to us at the recommendation and referral of another lawyer or one of our own clients. We work hard each day to earn and keep our reputation as lawyers who honor referrals and take superb care of other lawyers’ clients, family members, and friends in times of crisis and need.

The Googasian Firm, P.C. Craig M. Weber • George A. Googasian Thomas H. Howlett • Dean M. Googasian