By the Numbers: Clarkston Legal Production 2011

In my law practice, I drive from various courts across Michigan in a 2009 Ford Explorer.  That vehicle has 110,000 miles burned into it over the past 3-years.  That's a lot of court appearances.

Here are the numbers behind those miles for this past calendar year.


Michigan Court of Appeals.  Although I had not argued before the Court of Appeals in more than two years, I had 4 arguments before the intermediate appellate tribunal in 2011.  Also filed 25 briefs in that court; most of them applications for leave to appeal guilty pleas.  In the first week of 2012, I have two arguments.

Oakland County.  This is where we hold a "home field" advantage.  In 2011, I appeared in the circuit court, including the family court division, 118 times.  An additional 86 appearances were made in the Oakland County Probate Court.  Getting to know the judges pretty well over there.

Getting to know the Friend of the Court Referees as well with 30 trips to the FOC for early intervention conferences, or evidentiary hearings.

Macomb County.  Went "East Side" for 24 court appearances in 2011, all of them in the circuit or family courts; no East Side probate court appearances this year.  Many of these were for the Attorney General.

Wayne County.  In 2011, we made 20 court appearances in the "D"; fifteen were in the circuit and family courts, while the remaining 5 were all in the Wayne County Probate Court.

Genesee County.  Just to the North of our offices [we can be in Flint in less than a half hour], I made the dash to the Genesee County Circuit Court 10 times in 2011.  In addition, we made 4 trips to the Genesee Friend of the Court for hearings.

Livingston County.  Only five appearances in Livingston County Circuit Court this year; all on a single divorce case.

District Courts.  In 2011, we appeared in many of the various district courts placed throughout the counties in which we appear.  80 district court appearances to be precise; most of them for criminal matters.

Administrative Hearings.  Only three of these this year; for drivers license restorations and an implied consent refusal.

Keep in mind folks, these statistics are for but one attorney in the Karlstrom Cooney law firm; my partners have many other court appearances in these courts.  They do have, however, more "transactional" law practices than mine.  Along with Kay Caruso, Stuart Cooney, and Peter Keenan, we are the firm's litigators.

So these are my numbers for this year; it was a productive one.  We have our clients to thank for keeping us well engaged.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Valid Prenuptial Agreements Require Full Asset Disclosures

Prenuptial agreements, contracts executed in the anticipation of a marriage, have long been validated in Michigan courts.  Generally, there are two contingencies covered in a typical prenuptial agreement: a) the divorce of the contracting parties; and b) the death of one of the parties.

A primary requirement to enforcing a prenuptial agreement is the "special duty" of full disclosure of all assets by both contracting parties.  This requirement was recently examined in a key (but unpublished) decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The case, In the Matter of Kenneth Waller, originated right here in the Oakland County Probate Court.  The case illustrates the risk of executing a "do-it-yourself" prenuptial agreement.

The contract at issue in the Waller case waived the Wife's interest in a statutory share of her husband's estate in favor of the Husband's adult children.  The Wife challenged her Husband's estate at his death, despite her execution of the antenuptial agreement.

The contract was upheld by the probate court judge.  In reversing the probate court, the Court of Appeals focused on the asset disclosure and lack of evidence that any proper disclosure had been made by either party:

Accordingly, fair disclosure is required  under statute and caselaw in the context of
determining whether a prenuptial agreement can be deemed valid and enforceable.  The record indicates that there was no formal disclosure of assets by either decedent or Waller at the time of or before the execution of the  prenuptial agreement, such as through the presentation or exchange of written asset lists or through a verbal communication or declaration electronically recorded so as to preserve proof of disclosure.  The prenuptial agreement itself did not contain an itemization of assets and values,  nor did it indicate that disclosure of assets had taken place.  

Indeed, there is no evidence of even an informal, off-the-cuff discussion between Waller and decedent regarding the nature, extent, and value of each other’s assets prior to the execution of the agreement.  The probate court essentially found that Waller was sufficiently familiar with the assets held by decedent, making it unnecessary for decedent to redundantly disclose his assets to Waller before the agreement was signed, where  the assets had already been effectively “disclosed” to her simply through the evolution of their relationship in which familiarity with each other’s property naturally occurred.  We agree with the principle that if a party challenging a prenuptial agreement was fully aware of the other party’s assets and their value at the time of execution, an argument that there was a failure to fairly and formally disclose assets should fail; the purpose of a disclosure is to make a party  aware of what he or she may be giving up in signing a prenuptial agreement.

The Court of Appeals held that under such a record, the (rebuttable) presumption of non-disclosure should have been applied to invalidate the prenuptial agreement in that case.

Also, the Court of Appeals placed significance on the lack of a financial statement or schedule of assets.  These are typically attached to the antenuptial agreement.  This way, there can be no claim, as in the Waller case, of a failure to disclose, or a triggering of the presumption of nondisclosure.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Disparate Sentences for NBA Stars' Drunk Driving Convictions in Oakland County

A well-respected blog on sentencing picked-up on the infamous NBA drunk driving cases coming out of the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Hills, MI. The blog noted the difference between Jalen Rose's straight-forward OWI conviction [he did 14-days in the OCJ]; and the weapons charge component to Big Ben Wallace's OWI charge, recently resolved in the Oakland County Circuit Court before Judge Shalina Kumar.

Here is what the blog had to say about the two cases:

On the surface, it would appear that Wallace committed a (much?) worse offense but ultimately got a (much?) lighter sentence than Rose.  Of course, maybe there are some specific differences in the cases not obvious on the surface that justify this seeming disparity.  And, perhaps more importantly, the mere fact that can be (and often is) a lot of "low-level" sentencing disparity in this arena does not, in an of itself, necessarily establish that the applicable sentencing law is either unjust or ineffective.

Reading this blog post and being a local criminal defense attorney, I could not resist posting the following comment:

Great blog, DAB. This comment is from a criminal defense attorney in Oakland County, MI, where this Ben Wallace and Jalen Rose stuff went down. First, it is a suburb of Detroit; not in the "D", as we say. Also, Bloomfield Hills, where the district court is seated for that area, is a posh tony burb. (i.e. there are NBA stars driving around partying).

This comment seeks to shed some light on the "disparity" in the sentencing for the two NBA stars. Rose had the misfortune of driving drunk within the jurisdiction of the 48th District Court and to have his case randomly assigned to Judge Kim Small. Judge Small has made national headlines over the years for her drunk driving sentences; they often involve some jail time, even for first offenders with no criminal history. Currently, a group of high-end defense lawyers have challenged Judge Small, seeking to have her disqualified from all drunk driving cases on the basis that she is not fair or impartial, and that her "one-size-fits-all" sentencing policy (i.e. jail for all offenders), violates the "individualized sentencing" mandated by Michigan statute.
This is why Jalen Rose went to jail last summer. 

In the case of Ben Wallace, the big fella was OWI while packing some loaded cold steel in his Cadillac, upping his game to the felony level, and thereby "just passing through" the 48th District Court. Fortunately for him, although he too was randomly assigned to Judge Small, his attorneys executed a "fast break", waiving the preliminary exam, and binding Wallace over to the trial court. Once there, probation was available all day long. Good bye Judge Small; hello Judge Shalina Kumar. 

Unlike Rose, however, Wallace will have a felony weapons conviction on his record. Last year, Wallace spoke of going to law school. This probably puts the kabosh on that notion.
Here is a link to our local blawg coverage of Big Ben.

Sometimes an accused's notoriety helps his cause; sometimes it hurts the case.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Nursing Home Liability: Who Owns the Facility

A recent 2.35 million dollar Macomb County jury verdict shines a light on the ownership and practices of a nursing home in St. Clair Shores.  Bankruptcy and missing records clouded the identity of the real party in interest in a negligence law suit resulting from the 2008 choking death of a resident.

Turned out to be the Nightingale East Nursing Center, owned in part by a now-defunct company, and eventually traced to SavaSeniorCare, an LLC located in Atlanta, GA.

In the litigation, St. Clair Shores attorney John Perrin experienced an evidentiary mistrial and a mishandled document request in clawing his way to the jury verdict.  For their part, the defense attorneys claim that the botched corporate disclosure was not intentional.  Looking for the upside, defense attorneys Plunkett and Cooney (Jenny Andreou) claimed a partial victory through limiting the "non-economic" damage component of the verdict; a motion for remittur has been filed.

This death resulted from a resident choking on a golfball sized meatball; a largely unforeseeable event.  The jury found other liability factors in awarding plaintiff millions of dollars.  Obviously, we want to avoid this fate for any of our families and loved ones that are placed in a nursing home.

Serving as the guardian for more than 100 individuals, many of whom have been placed in nursing homes, I have learned that you can never pay close enough attention to the ward's care.  Complaints against licensed facilities are common and serve the purpose of compelling care improvements.

Nursing homes, assisted care facilities, and adult foster care residences provide a dizzying array of care choices and regulations.  Making the right placement for a family member or loved one is a critical decision.

In Macomb County, follow this link for skilled and basic care nursing homes.  In Oakland County, follow this link for the same information.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

6 Holiday Tips for Divorced Parents

Often, tensions escalate over the holidays as divorced parents struggle with the demands of scheduling the children to accommodate two households.  Holiday schedules are already difficult without the complications of a divorce judgment or divorce proceeding.


Here are some practical tips in dealing with holiday parenting time gleaned from divorce lawyers around the state.

1. Reduce an alternating holiday schedule to a court order.  It is always best for the children when the parents can agree on a schedule.  Alternating holidays is most common when drafting the parenting schedule.  When both parents live close to one another, many families utilize a shared holiday model where the children spend time with one parent until noon, and the other  parent for the balance of the day; then the next year, they switch.  This works for Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's Day and other holidays.  
2. Discuss the schedule with the children.  One solid co-parenting tactic is for both parents, once an agreement is reached, to communicate the schedule to the children.  This way, the children know in advance what to expect.  This can best be accomplished when both parents commit to rational communication and reasonable compromise for the children's sake.
3. Keep the activities simple.  This tip is particularly essential when the children are relatively young and if the divorce is still fresh.  The wounds of the once-whole family have yet to heal; holidays are particularly painful for both children and parents.  Therefore, it makes sense to tone down the activities and avoid rushing hither and yon during your now-scheduled parenting time.
4. Let your child express her feelings to you.  It is important to allow your children the opportunity to express their feelings of loss and disappointment and for you, as the parent, to validate those feelings.  What the child once experienced as an intact family unit has been fractured by divorce.  Therefore, pretending that everything is fine, or over-scheduling a whirlwind of activities to the point of distraction, will only add to the stress of your holiday parenting time.
5. Involve your extended family.  The more love the child feels during the years immediately following a divorce, the better.  Therefore, schedule some quality family time with members of your extended family.  Certainly, this would be a great opportunity for your children to spend time with their grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.  If your extended family is highly dysfunctional then, er, not-so-much.  
6. Avoid including a new "significant other".  This is the last thing you want to do at the holidays; not the time or the place.  Including your "significant other" too soon is a selfish thing to do to your children.  Upon reflection, you would probably agree that you would be doing that for yourself, certainly not for your children.  Children of divorce already struggle with guilt, a sense of loss, and insecurity.  They often perceive the introduction of a stranger, especially one that is close and intimate with their parent, as a threat, not a benefit from their parents' divorce.

Of course, the above holiday parenting tips must be adjusted to be age-appropriate.  There is no one-size-fits-all approach to this touchy subject.

Finally, a positive parental attitude over the holidays does wonders for a child's comfort and confidence.  Be the adult, not the child.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Michigan's Parole Process Explained

From time to time, our appellate clients asking about the parole process.  One way or another, incarceration and parole affects all of us; adding significant costs to maintain our freedom.

An effective criminal justice system depends on the ability of that system to reintegrate the overwhelming majority of convicted felons that have served their bit, back into some semblance of productive society.

The purpose of this post is to explain Michigan's parole process to our readers.  Whether you are a tax paying citizen, or someone with a direct connection to the MDOC, the costs and procedures affect everyone.

Here are the basics...

The Parole Board.
The Parole Board in Michigan was recently reduced in 2011 from 15 members to the current 10 members. The parole board members are appointed by the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). The Board is the sole paroling authority for felony offenders committed to the MDOC. Members serve 4, 3, and two year terms. Regular meetings are convened by the board to assess and decide parole applications.

The Parole Eligibility Report.
A felony offender must serve the minimum sentence with the MDOC prior to becoming eligible for parole. A Parole Eligibility Report (PER) is prepared on behalf of the applicant by a staff member of the MDOC. This report informs the parole board of the background of an inmate-applicant, and makes sure the applicant's parole file is complete.

The PER also makes recommendations to the parole board for each applicant, taking "misconduct" tickets and the prior criminal record into account. The generation of this report is a critical step in the parole process.

If an applicant has not completed all of the requirements set forth in the judgment of sentence, or if his file is otherwise incomplete, this is noted in the report and parole will be denied.

The Parole Board's staffers use the PER to score a prisoner's parole guidelines. These statutorily-mandated parole guidelines form the backbone of the parole process.

The Parole Interview.
Upon submissions of a prisoner's PER, the prisoner is eligible to participate in an informal and non-adversarial interview with one or more Parole Board members assigned to the prisoner's parole panel. After this interview, a Case Summary Report is generated for the Parole Board's review.
This interview is an excellent opportunity for the prisoner to address members of the board, face-to-face, in order to make a positive impression on his candidacy for parole. The prisoner can address major misconduct tickets, and explain how and when he plans to complete any missing training requirements in order to enhance his eligibility for parole.

Of course, in a perfect world, the prisoner will have completed all required components set forth in his judgment of sentence. This is why good lawyering is so important at the trial phase of the accused's case. Corrections to the presentence investigation report must be made in the lower court as this is the “bible” relative to the prisoner as far as the MDOC is concerned. An inmate will be forced to live within the confines of any errors unless they are corrected on appeal within the timelines set out in the Michigan Court Rules.

Transition Accountability Plan.
Under the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative, the Parole Board and the MDOC are required to formulate a Transition Accountability Plan (TAP) for each prisoner facing parole eligibility.
The TAP serves the dual goals of assisting the prisoner with re-entry into our society, as well as assisting the Board with its parole decision. The TAP identifies specific risk factors for a particular inmate, sets goals relative to minimizing the identified risks, and sets forth a specific plan to help the inmate meet the established goals.

The Parole Board’s Broad Discretion.
In making decisions on parole, the Parole Board has very broad authority to decide the inmate's fate. Nevertheless, the legislature has imposed some restriction on the Board's parole decisions.
For example, the Board must follow the regulatory framework summarized in this post. Also, in no case will a prisoner be granted parole unless and until the Board is satisfied the prisoner will not become, "a menace to society or to the public safety."

In exercising its discretion, the Board takes into account a prisoner's remorse for having committed the offense for which he is incarcerated, his overall mental health, and his "social attitude". A healthy positive attitude is what it takes to achieve parole status; but that is a difficult attitude to acquire and portray from within the grim walls of a prison. The inmate seeking parole must toughen his resolve to acquire and maintain the proper attitude, shutting out all competing negative factors.

Returning to Society.
A prisoner's fate lies squarely within the hands of the Parole Board. At a minimum, the process described above must be followed to the "T". The most important factor beyond having all of one's required sentence components completed, including the payment of restitution, is the adoption and maintenance of a strong positive attitude.

Recidivism is a plague to our society and costs all of us dearly. The Parole Board's job is to identify likely re-offenders and keep them locked-up for the duration of their sentence. This is the cost to society for safety and the enjoyment of our freedom. If the parole process works, prisoners can attain parole, complete parole, and re-join the ranks of law abiding citizens.

Resources.
The Michigan Court of Appeals published an opinion last month, People vs Haegler, explaining the nuts and bolts of the parole board in the context of the appellant-prisoner's CSC conviction and failed attempts at parole.

Some attorneys specialize in parole and probation consultations, assisting clients with the preparation and correction of their initial presentence reports, as well as with the parloe process.  Professional Parole Consulting is such an outfit located in Detroit, MI.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Anonymous Internet Critics

This blog has covered the defamation lawsuit filed by the Cooley Law School against one if it's more vocal critics; one of the legion of graduates that has trashed the law school in a blog titled "The Thomas M. Cooley Law School Scam".  This post brings our readers up to date with some important recent developments in the case.

Cooley's defamation suit, pending in the Ingham County Circuit Court, was assigned to Circuit Judge Clinton Canady III. Cooley is represented by the Miller Canfield law firm and the anonymous blogger, using the pseudonym "Rockstar05", is represented by Berkeley, MI attorney John Hermann.

For their part, Miller Canfield has been vigorously prosecuting their cause of action, issuing subpoenas in two states [Michigan and California] to the Rockstar05's Internet service provider, seeking to rip the lid off the blogger's identity.

In September and October, hearings were conducted on Rockstar05's motion to quash Cooley's subpoenas.  Somewhere along the way, the internet service provider in California apparently made an inadvertent disclosure of the blogger's identity to the Miller Canfield firm, who immediately moved the court to amend the complaint, seeking to add the now-disclosed individual to the suit.

Judge Canady initially sequestered the pleadings and documents that referenced Rockstar05's identity while it considered supplemental briefings on this First Amendment issue.  In October, however, the lower court denied Rockstar05's motion to quash the subpoena, providing time for defendant to lodge an interlocatory appeal, and allowing an amicus [various media organizations] to intervene in the case.

Rocktar05 has appealed Judge Canady's decision relative to the subpoena.  The media has filed a hard-hitting amicus brief.  Miller Canfield's response on behalf of Cooley Law School is expected to be filed any day now.

This blog predicts that the Michigan Court of Appeals will grant leave for this issue to be decided; apparently one of first impression here in Michigan.

At stake is the ability of vocal critics of a "public figure" to express their opinion anonymously, without the fear of having their mask pulled off, and their identity disclosed.

You'll have to stay tuned for the results on this important case.  It could likely take a few years to wind its way through the court system.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Preparing for a Second Marriage

Many factors affect whether a second marriage will last: the relative age and incomes of the partners, whether either party has children, cohabitation prior to the second nuptials, and the education level of the parties.

And, of course, how could we forget the personality of the ex-spouse; perhaps the most important factor of all.

According to statistics published by the National Institute of Health, approximately 15% of second marriages end within 3-years; and 23% end within 5-years.  Overall, however, the divorce rate for second marriages has drawn even with that of first marriages; about 40%.  Also, in its 2009 report Marital Events of Americans, the Census Bureau claims first marriages last, on average, about as long as second marriages: about 8-years.

Here are some things to think about, and some steps to consider, before tying the knot for the second time.

Prenuptial Agreement.
For those with assets, this document is a must.  To be enforceable, the prenuptial agreement largely depends on two things: a) full disclosure by both parties of all their respective assets; and b) legal representation of each party by separate lawyers.  If your partner does not want to sign such an agreement, then you should seriously consider cohabitation rather than marriage.  This is a harbinger of trouble in the event of a split.

Couples with only modest estates going into second marriages generally do not need the complication of a prenuptial agreement.  If a marital estate grows during the second marriage, that estate will be subject to an equitable property division in the event of divorce.

Solid Estate Planning.
Prior to a second marriage, assets may be transferred into a trust for the benefit of the owner's children.  Also, retirement asset rollovers (from a 401(k) plan into an IRA, for example) can operate to protect the new spouse with survivor benefits, or not, as the case may be.

A Qualified Terminable Interest Property trust (QTIP) typically provides for interest income going to a surviving (second) spouse, with the principle going to the settlor's children from her first marriage upon the death of the second spouse.

Children from a prior marriage can also be provided for using an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust.  This way, the new spouse can be designated as the beneficiary on the person's retirement assets and the children are designated beneficiaries of the death benefit from the life insurance policy.

Another common practice is to create a separate trust to provide for the distribution of separate property to the children from the first marriages and to create a joint trust to provide for the distribution of the marital estate of the second marriage.

Good Premarital Counseling.
One of the best things a couple can do prior to tying the second knot is to participate in joint counseling.  This should include religious counseling or premarital couples therapy, financial advice, and (separate) legal consultation.  Once separate legal counsel is received, the couple can certainly compare notes in order to get on the same page.

Going into a second marriage with your eyes open improves the chances of a successful nuptials.  When selecting an attorney to assist you with the necessary planning, find one that truly listens to your expressed wishes and pays close attention to the characteristics of your estate.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Miss Michigan "Super Drunk" Candidate in Highland Park

Former Miss Michigan Rima Fakih

Oops, busted.  Former Miss Michigan and Miss USA Rima Fakih, 26, of Dearborn, MI, allegedly was cited at 2:15 am in Highland Park for driving with a blood alcohol content of .20.

Unfortunately for the beauty queen, this qualifies her for a charge under Michigan's relatively new "super drunk" law.  While Fakih, like most other motorists, will be initially charged with a standard "operating while intoxicated" offense, there is the potential for the "super drunk" charge if her BAC is greater than .17.

This "super drunk" charge subjects drivers to stiffer penalties.  Those penalties include a one-year license suspension for first-time "super drunks"; an increase in the potential maximum jail sentence from 93-days to 180-days; higher fines; and mandatory use of an "ignition interlock" device.

The super drunk law also features the longest alcohol rehabilitation treatment requirement on the books; one-year.

If convicted as a "super drunk", Fakih's driver's license will be suspended by the Secretary of State for one-year.  After a 45-day "hard suspension" where all driving privileges are suspended, she can apply for restricted driving privileges for the balance of the year provided, however, that an " ignition interlock" device is installed in her vehicle.

If allowed to plead to an ordinary "operating while intoxicated" charge, the hard suspension may only be for 30-days, depending on Fakih's master driving record, and there will be no interlock requirement.

Installing an interlock device will cost her about $50 and up to $100 per month to maintain.

So we will just have to wait and see whether this beauty queen's celebrity [perhaps "infamy" is a better word] will aid her cause, or hurt her case.  It is unknown at this time whether she was charged under local ordinance or state law; or whether the local prosecutor will elect to charge her under the "super drunk" law or with just plain old ordinary OWI.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

The Dragon Suicides

This Tuesday, I will be heading to Detroit to present oral argument to a 3-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals.  The appeal is from a summary disposition of my client's wrongful death claim against the parents of a Lake Orion High School senior.


The LOHS senior hosted an impromptu graduation party in May 2008 while his parents were out dining and socializing until nearly 1:00 am.  The parents returned to a teenage house party meltdown; students puking, passing out, the furious father of a drunk freshman girl on the phone demanding answers and threatening to call the police. 


Early the next morning, one of the good friends of the student that hosted the house party hung himself in the basement of the Lake Orion home.  The decedent's estate raised claims of negligence in the failure to supervise the LOHS students and wrongful death.  The defendants in the law suit, the homeowners, have been represented by a law firm hired through their homeowners insurance. 


The lawsuit was dismissed from the Oakland County Circuit Court; from this summary disposition, the decedent's parents have appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals; oral arguments in the case are scheduled for Tuesday morning in Detroit.


My clients are the parents of the decedent, apparently one of 9 LOHS students or graduates to have killed himself within the last four years.  Two of the suicides occurred just last month.


This rash of LOHS-related suicides has led to the initiation of an on-line petition through Facebook sponsored by Lake Orion Reach Out.  The Reach Out group also seeks the formation of a suicide prevention class to be taught at the high school.


What is it about LOHS and the surrounding community that could be causing students to take their own lives?  Is there any connection between the cases?
  
One of the many comments to the Oakland Press article linked above suggests that bullying occurs at the school.  While there is a correlation between teen-age bullying and suicide, I doubt it can explain this Oakland County phenomena.

Nevertheless, to its credit, the Lake Orion Community Schools is implementing a district-wide bullying prevention program.

Here is a recent editorial on this sad subject from the Lake Orion Review, published following this post.


And here are some resources if you, a family member, or a friend or loved one is at risk for suicide:

Suicide crisis lines

• Common Ground: 24-hour crisis hotline 800-231-1127
• Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority Crisis Hotline: 248-456-1991
• Suicide Prevention Resource Center: 800-273-TALK (800-273-8255)

• Jason Foundation: 800-SUICIDE (800-784-2433)

Suicide prevention, education and treatment

• MINDS mental health awareness and education program 248-644-8003
• University of Michigan Depression Center: 800-475-MICH (800-475-6424)
• Joseph J. Laurencelle Memorial Foundation:  248-258-6693
• Oakland Schools: 248-209-2000
• Easter Seals: 800-75-SEALS (800-757-3257)
• Havenwyck Hospital: 800-401-2727
• Community Network Services: 800-273-0258 or 866-493-6797
• Training & Treatment Innovations: 800-741-1682
• Oakland County Suicide Prevention Coalition: e-mail administrator@ocspc.org.

Most often, people on the verge of committing suicide feel hopeless and depressed.  They need to be given the hope and the strength to hang on for another day.  

They need to understand that suicide is an irreversible decision.  We need to identify and assist those among us who are at risk, before they reach the point of no return.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Consumers of Legal Services Force Change in Law School Curriculum

Last Sunday's NYT had yet another above the fold, law school-related headline: What They Don't Teach Law Students: Lawyering.  In a sustained economic downturn, corporations (and individuals) that have reduced their legal budgets want lawyers with practical knowledge; not theoretical brilliance.

The academic template for law schools has been around, with very little change, since Harvard Law School branded the so-called "case method" in the late 19th Century.  This traditional legal pedagogy was memorialized in the 1973 movie, The Paper Chase.

The Socratic case method calls for students to read and break down cases that illustrate a particular, albeit ancient or esoteric, legal principle.  A law professor calls on students who must answer hard questions about the cases they have briefed.  The law students are forced to reason and think on their feet, like a lawyer in a courtroom.

The Socratic case method does not teach the student, however, how to handle contemporary problems faced by real-life clients in today's unforgiving marketplace.  Today, the cost-conscious consumer makes every effort to avoid the courtroom.

In our era of sustained economic downturn, the traditional law school model is under attack from two sides: there are very few legal jobs waiting for the legions of debt-burdened graduating law students; and clients generally do not want to see first or second year lawyers' time on their monthly invoices.

In response, many law schools have attempted practical innovations, introducing a "legal writing across the curriculum" component, and developing various legal clinics where students represent actual clients.  The effort has been to produce market-tested graduates.

Former Vanderbilt Law School Dean Edward Rubin has isolated the following areas where corporate clients are demanding better training from the academy:

• A better understanding of modern litigation which now includes an e-discovery component, diligent fact gathering, and a settlement process designed to avoid court; 
• Deeper knowledge of transactional law, including how to properly draft, evaluate and challenge a contract; 
• How to perform basic corporate due diligence in the modern government regulatory context; 
• Stronger legal writing skills (age-old complaint); and 
• Getting a clue about the economics of a law practice.

Locally, both the Wayne State University Law School, and the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law (this blogger's alma mater) have robust legal writing programs and have been leaders in developing urban clinics which provide students with practical experience serving real clients.

Like any customer, law clients want excellent service for a reasonable fee.  Hiring a law firm that implements cutting edge, cost-sensitive technique is more important than ever in reducing a corporation's or an individual's legal bills.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

High Income Child Support

In 1988, the federal Family Support Act required all states to enact presumptive child support "guidelines" in order to preserve federal funding on a variety of family-oriented programs.  Since then, Michigan has adopted the Michigan Child Support Formula.

In response to the Act, some states adopted support formulas that "top-out" for high earners.  Here in Michigan, for example, child support can only be calculated for an annual income of $422,916 or less.

In addition, the MCSF takes away most of the court's discretion in setting child support.  Absent compelling factors, support is determined through a straight-forward application of the MCSF.

In the case of some high-earning families, litigants have cried foul, asserting that when a parent earns millions of dollars, his children should share in that wealth.  This is particularly the case where the high income is short-lived; like with most professional athletes.

Like Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming all use a straight formulaic approach [with a cap] to the calculation of child support.  Other states utilize a percentage approach where the child support obligation just keeps going up; keeping pace with the parent's high income.

Recognizing this problem, some states have specific statutes that address high income households.  These statutes usually provide the family court judge with some good old-fashioned "discretion" to determine the child support obligation in accord with the "best interests of the child."

But what really is in the best interests of little "Richie Rich"?  Some of life's best lessons are learned with less, not more.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Oakland County Circuit Court Appoints Ombudsman

For the first time in its long history, the Oakland County Circuit Court has appointed an Attorney Ombudsman to serve as a liaison between the county's bench and the bar.  Southfield Attorney Joel Serlin has the distinction of being the first Ombudsman to the Oakland Circuit beginning December 1, 2011.

In announcing the appointment, Chief Judge Nanci Grant said:

Our bench is excited to participate in the inaugural ombudsman program.  We embrace the program, and the opportunity presented, as an illustration of the importance attached to the transparency and accountability of the bench and bar - to each other, of course, but more importantly to the administration of justice in Oakland County.

The role of this ombudsman will be to address the administrative and case management issues raised by the Oakland County bar.  The OCBA proposed the notion of appointing an ombudsman over a year ago. When the proposal was formally presented to the Oakland judges, it received overwhelming support.

The purpose underpinning the program will be to provide a discreet forum for attorneys practicing before the Oakland bench to address matters for which there is no other avenue in which to seek redress of their various concerns.  The ombudsman is independent of the judiciary and maintains confidentiality relative to the requests  made to his office.

This development is just another example of how practicing law in Oakland County is a distinct professional pleasure.  We welcome this development; kudos to the OCBA and all the Oakland County Circuit Judges.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Clarkston Legal Presents at ICLE's 10th Annual Family Law Instutite

On Friday, I presented on the topic of social media in the family law context to 500 Michigan lawyers attending ICLE's 10th Annual Family Law Institute at the Inn at St. John's in Plymouth, MI.

Part of the presentation dealt with the national and local "influencers" in the area of social media and the law; particularly family law.  Some of the more dynamic profiles of attorneys utilizing the social media were  profiled and discussed.

Lawyers are utilizing sites like Google+, YouTube, Linked In and Facebook to promote their content, expertise and profile.  Law-related sites such as JD Supra, Nolo, and Avvo were also profiled.

The second half of the presentation touched on issues of privacy and the expectation of privacy, or lack thereof.  The top social media sites referenced above install pieces of tracking software onto users computers.  The WSJ shined a bright light on this practice in its 2010 series, "What They Know".

Forensic recovery of electronically stored information (ESI) was one of the areas of primary focus.  Many divorce clients now present with information obtained through a violation of the spouse's privacy rights; the attorney must not accept such evidence.

Other clients destroy evidence or illegally scrub electronic information in transit with key-stroke programs such as the "evidence eliminator" which boasts that not even the FBI could recover scrubbed data.

One focus on whether evidence of bad conduct that may be relevant, or critical, to a custody dispute, is the source of the information.  ESI on a "family" computer has no expectation of privacy and is thus admissible in the family court.

Finally, the presentation surveyed recent litigation and case law arising from evidentiary disputes in family courts.  Some of the cases involved sexting, other cases involved cyber-bullying.

In all, it was a successful presentation made to an interested group of attorneys looking to put it all together in the social media context.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Wayne County Circuit Court Rolls Out E-Filing

Yesterday, the Wayne Circuit Court joined Oakland and a few other select counties that accept electronic case and document filings.  For the time being, however, only Wayne County's contract case filings, coded with the "CK" case code, are mandatory e-file cases; the rest of the docket still requires old-fashioned paper.

Oakland County has had e-filing for years; it has personally saved me hundreds of man-hours and my clients thousands of dollars.  There are still docket pockets in Oakland County, however, that have resisted the e-filing system.  Divorces with children, for example, have eluded Oakland County's e-file requirement.

An attorney must do a few proactive things to successfully get on board with the e-filing requirements.  First, invest in a good computer system and Internet connection.  Second, go to the training sessions routinely offered by the courts and bring your support staff.

While e-filing is here to stay, some critics assert that e-filing requirements reduce access to the court system for in pro per litigants who lack sufficient computing capital for electronic filing.  For these folks, there is still a paper option, but there are additional hoops to jump through.  Folks just need to get on board.

There can be no doubt that electronic filing is here to stay.  The federal system has been completely electronic via the PACER system for a decade; the Michigan appellate courts have been on an electronic filing system [albeit a different one from the county courts] for years and it works great.

Although we are still several years off from a 100% electronic filing system, it's coming.  The next hurdle for attorneys will be to make the commitment to a completely paperless law office.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Prisoner Has No Right to Miranda Warning During Prison "Investigation"

Homemade Prison Shanks

I have appellate clients doing time at the MDOC's Carson City Correctional Facility in Montcalm County.  One summer day a few years back, when I had just cleared the facility, a gang fight broke out in the yard which led to warning shots being fired from the gun tower and a 2-day lockdown.

Last month, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided a case involving the MDOC's attempt to get to the bottom of those gang disputes.  In the process, the intermediate appellate court touched on the nerve of an accused's right to have legal counsel prior to making statements to police.

In People v Cortez, the defendant, a prisoner at Carson City, underwent a cell shake-down which yielded two shanks from around his bunk.  Cortez was removed to a segregation unit and subsequently interviewed by an MDOC official who attempted to obtain information from the inmate relating to where the shanks came from and who was behind the gang violence.

In his statement, Cortez initially denied any knowledge of the shivs, then had a change of heart and told all, providing details about the gangs and the shivs.  He was charged with two counts of prisoner in possession of a weapon.

At his jury trial [yes, he utilized his right to crank-up a jury trial], Cortez's lawyer attempted to keep out his statements on the basis they were made during a custodial interrogation but without the benefit of Miranda warnings.

You remember Miranda v Arizona; the seminal criminal procedure and constitutional law case from the 1960s SCOTUS, requiring police to provide an accused suspect of his right to remain silent and to obtain a lawyer prior to answering any questions.

Anyway, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision to allow the MDOC official testify about his questioning of Cortez; the questioning was characterized by the prosecutor as designed to elicit information about the gang violence within the facility and not to obtain evidence of Cortez's guilt.  Cortez's SADO attorney argued that the questioning was clearly intended for use in his subsequent prosecution.

The Court of Appeals held that Cortez was not entitled to Miranda warnings on the basis that he was not in "custodial interrogation" when he was, er, "interviewed" by the prison official; that the prison official was not the equivalent of the state police, nor was he acting on behalf of the state police, who later took over the case;  that the MDOC official's sole concern was prison safety, not gathering evidence against Cortez.

So, within the confines of a prison at least, an accused should not expect to be provided the seminal warnings that a police officer normally would provide about having a right to remain silent and to speak to an attorney before answering questions.

Hopefully, the holding in the case will be restricted to the context of the prison setting.  We don't want safer prisons at the expense of our constitutional rights out here in "the World".

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Michigan Court of Appeals Rules State Clerk Must Testify in DWLS Cases

In a 2-1 decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently ruled that a certificate mailed to a state driver, notifying him of his suspended license, is "testimonial" as that term is used in the constitution thus, the Secretary of State must produce it's clerk at a trial for driving on a suspended license.

The case, People v Nunley, arose in a district court in Washtenaw County.  The prosecutor attempted to introduce notice of the defendant's suspension, without calling a clerk from the Secretary of State's office to lay the proper foundation for the entry of that key document.

Both the district court and the circuit court denied the prosecutor's request to admit the document of suspension; a key element in any DWLS case.

The Court of Appeals panel reasoned that because the prosecutor must establish that the motorist received notice as an element of the crime, it held that introduction of the actual notice document, without producing the necessary foundational witness, violated the accused's right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to confront and cross examine all witnesses.

In a well-reasoned 7-page dissent, Presiding Judge Henry Saad concluded that the notice was not "testimonial" under the analysis of seminal U.S. Supreme Court caselaw.  Judge Saad characterized the notice as merely "administrative" and emphasized that, when the notice was sent to Mr. Nunley, no crime had yet been committed [i.e. Nunley had yet to drive on his newly suspended license].  As such, the notice could not be testimonial in nature.

The result of this decision is that the prosecutor must now secure the appearance of the state clerk from Lansing in order to obtain a DWLS conviction.  Should the administrative costs of securing a conviction alter the analysis of the accused's constitutional right to confrontation of witnesses?  We think not.

The Washtenaw County Prosecutor has promised further appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

SCOTUS to Hear Michigan Case on Plea Bargain Process

This week I had a 3-day jury trial. When it was completed, I walked out of the courthouse but my client did not.

In such criminal cases, at the brink of trial, it is common that the plea discussions give an accused serious pause. Rejection of a reasonable plea offer can result in significantly more time in prison thus, the stakes are high.

The counsel-driven plea process is at the heart of a Michigan case up for oral argument this week at SCOTUS: Lafler v Cooper. The case comes from the Wayne County Circuit Court; straight out of the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice.

The female victim in the case was shot 4-times by Anthony Cooper: twice in the buttocks, once in the abdomen, and once in the hip.  She survived these gunshot wounds.

Cooper's lawyer rejected a plea offer that would have capped his prison term to the lower end of his sentencing guidelines on an attempted murder charge.  The offer was rejected on grounds that the medical evidence in the case would demonstrate that Cooper was only trying to maim his victim; not kill her.  Counsel pushed for a reduction of the charges to assault with intent to do great bodily harm.

Well, as I've learned over the past two decades: "good luck with that..."

After his jury trial conviction, Mr. Cooper was sentenced to 135-360 months in prison.  On appeal, he raised a claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea bargain phase of his case in contravention of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

With his appeals exhausted in the state courts, Cooper filed a petition for Habeas Corpus in federal court.  The federal court ruled that the state appellate court erred by not accounting for the "affirmatively deficient advice" of Cooper's trial counsel in rejecting the prosecutor's initial plea offer.

The remedy: the federal court ordered specific performance of the initial plea offer: i.e. a 50-month prison term.  Understandably, the prosecutor appealed hence, the case now resides on the SCOTUS docket.

We will keep an eye on this one for you as it implicates how defense counsel handles the all-important plea bargain process.  So stay tuned...

http://www.waterfordlegal.com/

info@waterfordlegal.com

Panel Appointed to Examine Indigent Criminal Defense

This past week, Governor Rick Snyder issued an executive order appointing 10 people to serve on an "advisory commission".  Their mission: to quickly assess and make recommendations to the executive and legislature about the delivery of effective legal representation to the indigent accused.

Along with the 10 gubernatorial appointees, the commission also includes state legislative leaders from each political party; two from the state house and two from the state senate.

In reviewing the Governor's appointments, it was good to see Oakland County well represented.  Oakland County Circuit Judge Colleen O'Brien is on the commission along with former Oakland County Bar Association President Judith Gracey.

The problem presented to the Commission is how to provide effective assistance of counsel, as guaranteed under the United States and the Michigan Constitutions, for accused individuals that cannot afford to hire a lawyer.  Michigan is considered to be among the worst states in the Union in providing legal services for indigents.

This blog covered the problem last October when the Michigan Supreme Court reversed course in the Duncan v State of Michigan case, granting summary disposition to a constitutional challenge to our system of court appointed legal counsel.  So now the executive branch will make an attempt to fix what most everyone agrees is a broken system.

Here in Oakland County, this blogger has observed many a colleague providing quality legal service on a court-appointed [thus, low paying] basis.  A court-appointed lawyer may go through 50 pleas before taking a case to trial.

Similarly, at the appellate level, roster attorneys for the Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System subsist on a steady diet of guilty plea appeals which are essentially thankless fools' errands; done dirt cheap.  These MAACS attorneys, however, wait for a legitimate appellate assignment to come along, providing the opportunity to file a merits brief seeking to correct a constitutional wrong.

While professionally gratifying, the trial and/or appellate attorney can expect to be compensated at the rate of about $20 - $25 per hour.

Underfunded Courts Will Erode Justice

This granite courthouse in the Bronx took a decade to
build (1905-1915) and has been abandoned since 1978.

Achieving justice in the United States is never a given.  There are many factors that affect an outcome in the courthouse: the relative skills of the attorneys; the time a matter takes to get to trial; the personality of the judge; the backlog of the judge's docket.

One factor becoming increasingly important in the determination of justice is the funding [or lack thereof] for the judiciary.

Here in Michigan, there are budget-conscious proposals to eliminate trial judges, court of appeals judges, and to shrink the Michigan Supreme Court from 7 to 5 justices.

Referred to as the weakest branch of government in the Federalist Papers due to its inability to control either sword or purse, the judiciary must now fight for its fiscal life here in America, both at the federal level, and on a state-by-state basis, as legislatures scramble to shrink all government budgets.

Here in Oakland County, the county executive, Brooks Patterson, runs a very tight fiscal ship.  He has demanded that the courthouse balance its budget; in turn, they have accounted for nearly every penny spent in the courthouse, saving wherever possible.

Patterson's plan has meant a slow attrition among the corps of judicial clerks and other court staff.  At the Oakland County Probate Court, this has translated to juggled counter hours and longer lines.  Overall, however, the Oakland County Circuit Court's service to the public has not suffered.  How long, we wonder, can this continue?

If you have not been to the Macomb County Circuit Court in a while, don't plan your business for the afternoon if it's a Tuesday or Thursday; the clerk's office will be closed.

Elsewhere, courts have not fared nearly so well.  In California, for example, $350 million has been cut from the county trial courts since 2009, with even more cuts due by the end of the year.  The Economist reported last week that up to 48% of California's county trial courts could be rendered insolvent by the state's budget crisis.

One result of the cuts to courts in California is lengthening the time an uncontested divorce takes to process through the court system; from 6 to 18 months.  Trained court staff is needed to process such cases without delay.

In New York, the judges, not having seen a legislated pay raise since the turn of the century, have sued the political branches of their state government.  In Ohio, the Morrow County Municipal Court went to a 4-day work week in 2009 and stopped taking new cases for filing because the county failed to requisition sufficient paper.

Some quick stats compiled by the American Bar Association regarding the state of the state judiciaries:

• 26 states have stopped filling judicial vacancies; 
• 34 states have stopped filling judicial clerkships; 
• 31 states have frozen judges' or clerks' salaries; 
• 14 states have closed courts during weekdays; and 
• 3200 courthouses have been characterized as "physically eroded" or "functionally deficient".

According to ABA, "the underfunding of the judicial system threatens the fundamental nature of our tripartite system of government."  To borrow a cliche that also captures the spirit of this problem: "justice delayed is justice denied."

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Boozy Bears & MIPs

As Halloween approaches, here's an adult trick that's been going around; add a pint of vodka to some gummy bears and, viola; you have a batch of Boozy Bears.

The problem arises, however, when teens get their hands on the alcohol soaked candy.  Now, any gummy-munching teen will come under suspicion for being a minor in possession [of alcohol].

There are legitimate web sites for adults, that instruct party-goers how to make a batch of the Boozy Bears.  Effortlessly; just add Stoli.

These sites have had millions of hits on the Internet.  Things that are harmful to teenagers are all over the web.  Fortunately, several news stations recently splashed Boozy Bear warning segments across their evening newscasts.

So, be on the lookout...

Teenagers charged with an MIP have options.  Contact a local attorney if you are your family member has been charged.  And in the meantime, stay away from the Boozy Bears.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

SCOTUS Opens Term with First Amendment Case from Michigan

The church can fire its priest, but can it fire the altar boy?

The case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v EEOC is one of the first cases to be argued in the 2011-2012 SCOTUS term that opens today in Washington D.C. This First Amendment freedom of religion case arises from an employment dispute at a now-defunct church in Redford, MI.

The issue in the case is the scope of the long-recognized exception to the federal employment discrimination laws when it comes to hiring or firing the clergy for a church, synagogue, or mosque.  This so-called "ministerial exception" has been recognized by all 12 federal appellate courts with the authority to hear such cases, as well as the supreme courts of 10 states.

The rationale behind the exception is that religious organizations, under the freedom of religion, should be allowed to make their own decisions about hiring and firing clergy, without concern of the normal anti-bias laws.  The question to be argued before SCOTUS on Wednesday morning is how deep into the staff and the payroll this ministerial exception goes.

Most religious institutions want the freedom to make all staffing decisions without concern for federal employment law; not just decisions relating to the pastor, the priest, the rabbi or the imam.  They are pushing for a flat-out ban on all anti-bias laws for any staffing decisions.

The Solicitor General asserts that, to the extent it is recognized, the church's interpretation of the exception is too broad.  Church staff members, the federal government will argue, are protected by federal and state employment laws.

The Hosanna-Tabor Church case involves a parochial school teacher who was fired allegedly because of her numerous disability-related complaints; the claim is that her firing by the church-school was retaliatory.  If the High Court considers her to be the equivalent of a clergy member, then she cannot seek the shelter of the Americans with Disabilities Act; if she is deemed to be a mere staffer, then she is entitled to protection under the applicable laws.

SCOTUS has seen disputes akin to this in prior petitions.  One of the reasons the Redford, MI church's petition may have been selected is because it was prepared and filed by University of Virginia Law School's Professor Douglas Laycock; one of the nation's leading experts on church-state law.

Our First Amendment jurisprudence continues to grow ever richer.  Stay tuned for the result.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Saved by the Gun

Ben Wallace

What a difference one-year makes.  Last year, our law firm's web site carried a tweet in our news feed about Big Ben attending law school.

Last weekend, any plans the big fella had of convincing a state bar to issue a law license in his name just became more complicated.  Wallace, recently retired from the Detroit Pistons, and a former Chicago Bull and Cleveland Cavalier, was arrested in Bloomfield Township on Saturday night.

News reports have Wallace failing field sobriety tests and submitting to a breath test allegedly resulting in a .14 blood alcohol content.  The legal limit in Michigan is .08; the year-old "SuperDrunk" threshold is .17.

An unloaded pistol allegedly was found in Wallace's Cadillac.  This could actually help him out.

Apparently, Wallace's case was randomly assigned to 48th District Judge Kim Small; known for her harsh sentences for first time offenders of Michigan's drunk driving laws.

Drunk driving is a misdemeanor if a first offense; misdemeanors stay in the district courts where they originate.  Carrying a concealed weapon, on the other hand, is a felony.  Felonies are bound over for trial, or resolution via plea, at the county circuit court.

Judge Small was all over the national headlines this summer when she sentenced former NBA star, Jalen Rose, to nearly a month in the Oakland County Jail.   Would Big Ben have received the same fate?  We'll never know now.

Wallace will most likely plead guilty to both the felony and the misdemeanor and get probation rather than any jail time.  Carrying the unlicensed pistol may have saved the big fella several weeks of sensory deprivation in the Oakland Hotel.

Update:
I was in the halls of the Oakland County Circuit Court on Tuesday when Big Ben was being sentenced by Judge Shalina Kumar.  As predicted, he received probation.

Here's a post to an outstanding criminal law blog that captures the perspective of these local NBA stars' convictions from the national level.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com