Columns

Law, it seems, is changing rapidly at the state and federal level. It can be difficult to keep up with the transformation of entire areas of substantive law. There is a kind of reordering of things, which includes revisiting established precedents to correct perceived legal errors in prior rulings. 

Law, it seems, is changing rapidly at the state and federal level. It can be difficult to keep up with the transformation of entire areas of substantive law. There is a kind of reordering of things, which includes revisiting established precedents to correct perceived legal errors in prior rulings. 

The Michigan Supreme Court has distinguished itself nationally by taking a measured approach. Although the justices are popularly elected, the Court doesn’t appear to be actively looking for ways to take up controversial issues. The Court has shown a willingness to reexamine precedent, however. 

One case the Court should look at is Nehra v. Provident Life and Accident Company, 454 Mich. 110 (1997) involving the interpretation of disability insurance contracts for professionals like surgeons. 

If the case sounds unfamiliar, it is. 

Even seasoned Supreme Court advocates hadn’t heard of it. Nehra is rarely cited and even more rarely followed. Most cases that cite it, distinguish it. 

Nehra is a decision that proves again the old adage that ‘bad facts can make bad law.’  The problem with Nehra – in addition to being a bad decision – is that it serves to undermine the long-term financial security of professionals in certain industries, particularly medicine. 

In Nehra, the plaintiff, a dentist, filed an insurance claim with his long-term disability insurance carrier. His policy provided coverage in the event he could not regularly perform his specific occupation — dentist — if he became ill or he had suffered “injuries.” 

The issue in Nehra centered on what constitutes an “injury” in a disability insurance contract. The contract in Nehra states that the term “injuries” means “accidental bodily injuries occurring while your policy is in force.”  As contrasted with the term “sickness,” which under the contract “means sickness or disease which is first manifested while your policy is in force.” The contract did not define the term “accidental bodily injuries.” Nehra, 454 Mich. at 112.

In his application, the plaintiff listed “bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome” as being one of the causes of his disability along with “duodenal ulcer with hemorrhage.” His claim was approved, and he began collecting benefits. 

The decision suggests that Nehra had not realized that his disability contract made a distinction regarding the cause of his disability. Under the contract, if his disability were a “sickness,” his monthly benefits would end at age 65. If his disability stemmed from “injuries,” on the other hand, he could receive benefits over a lifetime. 

After collecting benefits for years, Nehra attempted to change the cause of his disability to “injury” from “sickness.” Nehra argued that his diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome was the result of a series of repetitive motion injuries that qualified him for the lifetime benefit under the “injuries” provision of his contract. The medical record on this point was seemingly underdeveloped.

Nehra’s claim was denied, and a lawsuit followed. The trial court dismissed his case, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reinstated it, finding there was an issue of fact as to the cause of Nehra’s disability. From there, the Supreme Court granted leave and reversed the Appeals Court reinstating the dismissal. 

The Supreme Court reasoned that the case was governed principally by two statutes that have nothing to do with disability insurance. 

First, the Supreme Court looked to the provisions of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act to determine the meaning of the word “injury.”  The Court also looked to Michigan’s No-Fault Act to determine the meaning of an “injury.”  

The concept of a repetitive motion type injury was not supported by the Court’s reading of either statute. The Court found that an “injury” was a precipitating event that led to the claimant’s condition, not a pattern of micro-injuries over a sustained period of time.

Other courts have rejected this analysis. One federal court wrote that it had never heard of a “repetitive motion sickness.” Chapman v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 555 F. Supp. 3d 713, 724 (D. Minn. 2021).

Nehra is not a particularly strong or persuasive decision, and upon closer examination, its underlying analysis is flawed. 

Both the Workers Compensation Act and the Michigan No-Fault Act are statutes that regulate mandatory insurance systems. The two statutes cited mandate that individuals and businesses purchase specific forms of insurance, and the cited laws create a uniformity among huge segments of the state’s population. 

A private disability contract is a contract that is voluntary and its purchase is discretionary. The terms that govern the contract are between the two contracting parties, and Michigan does not regulate the definitions that appear in a disability insurance contract. 

The Nehra case is an outlier and makes little sense in our modern, professional world. 

Here’s an example. Nehra is routinely cited to try to defeat the legitimate claims of surgeons who have suffered spinal injuries during the practice of their profession. Surgeons experience a significantly higher rate of spinal problems compared with the general population. 

By some estimates, nearly 75% of all surgeons suffer from back problems. Some surgical specialties have a rate of spinal injuries as high as 65% of the entire occupational category. And this is a growing trend. 

With the consolidation of medical practices, the specialization of surgical practices, and increased patient need, surgeons are seeing their caseloads increase. The more surgeons work, the greater the risk of injury to their own spines. 

Compounding matters, surgeons work in physical positions where their bodies are contorted for long periods of time; further, they are required to wear equipment necessary to perform surgery, including magnetic loupes and heavy, protective lead aprons. 

Collectively, this contributes to putting pressure on the neck and back and often results in spinal injuries over time. Undoubtedly, their medical conditions are caused by “injuries,” not illnesses.  

Nehra is a little known, rarely cited case; yet, it increasingly hangs out there as an impediment for legitimately disabled medical professionals within our state who entered into expensive disability contracts in the good faith understanding that their injuries (not just narrowly defined ones), would be covered. 

Nehra is not good law, comparatively speaking, and serves little purpose to continue. The Michigan Supreme Court should give it another look and consider overruling it. 


______________________

John Joseph (J.J.) Conway is an employee benefits and ERISA attorney and litigator and founder of J.J. Conway Law in Royal Oak.

Activists are collecting signatures for a proposal, possibly for a November 2026 vote, that would amend the state constitution to add a new rate in the state income tax. This would give Michigan the seventh-highest rate in the country; fourth-highest if you include Detroit’s city income tax.

Activists are collecting signatures for a proposal, possibly for a November 2026 vote, that would amend the state constitution to add a new rate in the state income tax. This would give Michigan the seventh-highest rate in the country; fourth-highest if you include Detroit’s city income tax.

It would also do serious damage to Michigan’s already frail economy by hurting businesses and punishing job creators. But there are more than just practical reasons to oppose a select tax hike. The proposal would violate basic constitutional principles that ought to matter to all of us.

The proposal would raise the state’s income tax rate from 4.25% to 9.25% for single taxpayers who earn more than $500,000 and for joint filers who earn more than $1 million. It’s a small number of people, around 18,300 households, according to the latest figures from the Internal Revenue Service. That’s only around 0.3% of all tax filers in Michigan.

These taxpayers would pay 48.65% of what they earn, split among federal, state and local governments. It’s downright un-American to tax half of what someone earns.

This small number of taxpayers has a large effect on the state economy. The bulk of high earners in Michigan are not movie stars or athletes. They’re business owners. High-earning households claim 90% of the flow-through credits available when business owners pay taxes through Limited Liability Companies, S-corporations and other partnerships. And they pay 33% of the self-employment taxes. They wouldn’t pay $1.5 billion in income taxes on their businesses — equivalent to 15% of the total income taxes — if they didn’t employ a lot of other people in Michigan.

A confiscatory tax will scare a lot of business owners out of the state, and cause more hesitation about moving here. That ought to be enough to get people to realize that the proposal is bad policy. Still, there are broader reasons why they should oppose select tax hikes. It’s just not how taxes should work in a government run for the public’s benefit.

The government is supposed to do only things that people think serve the public. That includes right now a number of charitable activities — helping people who need it afford food and medical care — and also everything else the state does. The state government ensures education for all children in the state, it enforces state law and incarcerates criminals, it keeps and maintains a system of public rights-of-way and more. This costs money. Taxes are supposed to be the acceptable way to pay for services that elected officials have decided will 
benefit the public.

That’s not to say that everything the state does justifiably serves public purposes. The state’s ineffective business subsidies are a waste of money and serve private purposes rather than the public interest. Pork projects go to serve local and private purposes rather than the people of Michigan, a point we’re arguing in court.

Taxes levied on the public for the public good have to be levied in fair ways, and that means they have natural limits. “There are certain limitations upon this power,” Michigan Justice Thomas Cooley noted, “not prescribed in express terms by any constitutional provision, but inherent in the subject itself.” That is, the taxes levied by governments are subject to rules beyond those in the state and federal constitutions.

One of those rules is that taxes must be apportioned fairly, and not, as Cooley wrote, “arbitrarily or by caprice, so that the burden may be made to fall with something like impartiality upon the persons or property upon which it justly and equitably should rest.”

The tax hike proposal unjustly picks out a segment of the population and levies punishing taxes on them. “Fund Schools. Tax the Rich. Protect the Democracy,” its advocates proclaim. This view suggests that a small segment of the population harms the state and must be punished with taxes.

(Schools in Michigan already get an average of $23,700 per student from federal, state and local funding, by the way.)

Tax policy should be about fairly and equitably raising money for government services. It should not punish a small number of people for their success. 

The proposal would harm the state’s economy, but it also violates basic principles of fairness and should rub all Michigan earners the wrong way.


James M. Hohman is the director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

This is the second commentary in a series first describing the Founding Fathers’ perspectives on “thinking like a scientist” and second comparing those perspectives with present-day government actions and policy.

This is the second commentary in a series first describing the Founding Fathers’ perspectives on “thinking like a scientist” and second comparing those perspectives with present-day government actions and policy.

The focus of the prior commentary was on Benjamin Franklin’s introduction to scientific thinking while he was an apprentice printer at his brother’s newspaper. The paper covered the Boston smallpox epidemic of 1721 and the controversy and startling success of experimental smallpox vaccinations. 

From that event Franklin learned the value of not fearing experimentation where potential benefits outweigh risks, of keeping an open mind during crisis, and to preferring facts over conventional dogma in decision-making.   

This commentary focuses on the scientific lessons Franklin learned through his experiments with the properties of electricity.

Chapter four, titled “The Bolt from the Blue” of Tom Shachtman’s 2014 book “Gentlemen Scientists and Revolutionaries,” outlines Franklin’s experiments. 

Franklin received little formal schooling and no training as a “scientist” as the term did not exist in the English language until 1833. Nonetheless, at an early age, Franklin demonstrated a consuming desire to learn how things work and to improve his station through self-taught education.

That drive and his ingenuity served him well when he began his own printing business at age 17 in Philadelphia. The business succeeded, and as he prospered, Franklin dedicated more of his time to inventing.  

Lacking familiarity with the advanced mathematics that enabled Issac Newton to prove his grand exposition of the planetary and natural world, Franklin used experiments as his method of proof. Although not by name, Franklin practiced the “Scientific Method.” He carefully observed, saw patterns and possible explanations then devised experiments to test theories. He would refine and perfect experiments until identifying a solution that could be proven by successful repetition.  

Based on the forces of attraction and repulsion exhibited by magnetized lodestones, Newton posited that those two forces comprised the “basic components of electric force.” He was wrong. Nevertheless, for decades natural philosophers fruitlessly sought to prove Newton’s “two-fluid theory” of electrical force: attraction and repulsion, which they termed “vitreous” and “resinous.” 

Guided by the results of experiments, Franklin in 1747 proposed a “single-fluid-that-seeks-equilibrium theory” as an alternative. To fully express the theory, Franklin coined new but now familiar terms: “positive” and “negative” as well as “plus” and “minus.”  As Shachtman explained, these “pairs” described “not two kinds of electricity, but two phases of a single fluid.”  

As a result of the much later discovery of electrons, positively and negatively charged electrons would substitute for Franklin’s “single fluid” with “electric spark” as the means to restore “equilibrium.” 
Franklin’s theory was correct.

In arriving at the single fluid theory over a period of several years, Franklin enjoyed the support of many collaborators and correspondents. In pursuit of a common goal, these individuals provided forthright communications and shared valuable insights to refine Franklin’s experiments. The efforts of this “ad hoc” group led to his success in ultimately identifying how electricity worked.

The single fluid theory of electricity had practical and immediate benefits. Franklin’s invention of the “lightning rod” to prevent fires in homes, building, and churches was one of these. Franklin did not patent the invention. As he had done before with the “Franklin stove,” he sought no profit from these inventions believing they were for “the benefit of mankind.”

In addition to deserved celebrity for placing American science on the world stage, Franklin learned lessons that would also serve him in his future role as a Founding Father.  

Franklin learned that perfecting experiments to final fruition required time and perseverance in the face of short-term setbacks.  He learned that revealing intermediate steps and results to a community of like-minded collaborators fostered creative synergy.  

He learned honest shared insights in a community dedicated to serving the greater good need not be motivated by individual profit to achieve success.

The next commentary will focus on the scientific thinking of other Founding Fathers as a prelude to turning attention to present-day government actions and attitudes directed at the scientific community.

I DON’T WANT TO FILE CHAPTER 13!
That’s what most of my consumer bankruptcy clients say. They want to file Chapter 7, which they see as easy, inexpensive, and quick.

I DON’T WANT TO FILE CHAPTER 13!

That’s what most of my consumer bankruptcy clients say. They want to file Chapter 7, which they see as easy, inexpensive, and quick. They hate the idea of filing Chapter 13. But when they fully understand Chapter 13, they come to like it. They don’t want anyone throwing them out of their Chapter 13 Plan. People who are in Chapter 13 are forcing their creditors to accept a payment plan that the consumer proposes, and the Court approves. And they don’t lose any property.

Why would a person be forced into Chapter 13 instead of Chapter 7? Two big reasons: (1) They have a house that has too much equity to keep; and/or (2) the household income is too high. These days, with home values being high, more people have large amounts of equity in their homes and they can’t file Chapter 7 without losing their house.

Chapter 13: In Chapter 13 bankruptcy, payments are made on a portion of the debt, and the rest of the debt is wiped out. The payments are usually based on subtracting the client’s monthly expenses from their monthly income, and the leftover amount is sent to the trustee every paycheck for the length of the Plan. The Plan will run for either three years (36 months) or five years (60 months). Working out the client’s budget is the hard part. Most people whom I see are not wasting money, so there is not much cutting to do.

The first reason people have to file Chapter 13 over Chapter 7: How much equity is in the house? Many people have no idea how to figure out their equity. The quick way is to double the SEV (State Equalized Value, as shown on the twice-yearly tax bill) to get the value of the house according to the City or Township, and then subtract what is owed on the mortgage. But this method assumes the SEV is accurate. Many Chapter 7 Trustees will want to get their own estimate of the house value.

Looking online at Trulia or Zillow is another way, but these sites are often not trusted either. The most accurate way to get the house value is to list it for sale and see what offers come in.

And that is what the Chapter 7 Trustee will do to see what offers the house will bring. This prospect often scares the consumer debtor, and they will not want to file bankruptcy at all.

But the solution is to file Chapter 13, where the debtor cannot lose any property.

Paying for your property in a Chapter 13. The problem is, in a Chapter 13 your non-exempt property must be paid for. Every Chapter 13 has a Chapter 7 case within it. The attorney must calculate what property the client would lose in a Chapter 7, and that non-exempt property must be paid for. The law’s assumption is that the client doesn’t have to file Chapter 7, they could liquidate their property and pay their debts that way. But by filing bankruptcy, the client gets to keep a certain amount of property (the exemptions), whereas if they did not file bankruptcy, they would be selling off all their property to pay their debts. So the benefit of filing Chapter 13 is that you don’t have to sell any property, but you have to pay for the non-exempt portion of what you are keeping. This often makes a Chapter 13 payment unaffordable. In that situation, the attorney will have to counsel the client to consider selling the property and paying the creditors with the net profits.

The second reason people have to file Chapter 13 over 7: How much income is too much? Generally, a single person earning up to about $50,000 annually will pass the means testing and be able to file Chapter 7. But above that income, they may not qualify and they will be forced to file Chapter 13. Here is a calculator that you can use to enter a potential filer’s household income and see if the person qualifies: https://www.bestcase.com/quick-median-income-test/

A big benefit in Chapter 13: Some debts (like student loans and taxes) are not wiped out in either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. But they have to be listed, and they get priority. So if the student loans and taxes have to be paid anyway, that often means that the credit cards and other unsecured debts will get less. In a Chapter 13, the unsecured creditors will end up with only a small percentage of their debts paid and the rest is wiped out.

The Chapter 13 payment is effectively the client’s student loan and tax payment, which would have to be paid anyway - it just goes through the Trustee. And the student loan and tax authorities are forced to accept the Chapter 13 Plan.

A big benefit in Chapter 13: Attorney fees. When clients wince at the thought of having to file Chapter 13, part of the problem is the attorney fees, which will be much greater than for a Chapter 7. What they don’t understand is that in Chapter 13, the attorney fees are usually paid through their plan payment, and the client pays the attorney nothing directly. The usual attorney fee (which is set by the Court) for a Chapter 13 is $3,500. But the client doesn’t have to pay that up front – the client makes their regular payment to the Chapter 13 Trustee, and the Trustee and the attorney get paid out of that. Unfortunately for the creditors, that sometimes lowers the amount that the creditors will get. So the net effect is that the creditors are paying the client’s attorney fees. I call it justice.

  _____________________

Gregory L. Dodd, a past Co-Chair of the WCBA Bankruptcy Law Section, has been filing bankruptcy cases (Chapters 7 and 13) since 1995. He currently handles only bankruptcy, probate and divorce matters. Mr. Dodd is a former WCBA president. He can be reached at greggdodd2000@gmail.com.
Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Bar Association newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Guardian ad Litems (GALs) are increasingly being used in family law cases to assist the parties, attorneys, and courts in crafting a custody and parenting time plan that works for the minor children, who are profoundly affected by the dissolution of the family as they have always known it.

Guardian ad Litems (GALs) are increasingly being used in family law cases to assist the parties, attorneys, and courts in crafting a custody and parenting time plan that works for the minor children, who are profoundly affected by the dissolution of the family as they have always known it.

Below are bullet points to assist family practitioners in deciding when it’s appropriate to ask the court to appoint a GAL, how to work most effectively with the GAL, and how to work most efficiently with the GAL.

What kinds of family cases generally require a GAL

• High-conflict custody or parenting-time disputes where parental positions are entrenched.

• Cases involving allegations of abuse, neglect, domestic violence, substance use, cognitive or mental-health concerns, or parental alienation.

• Complex family dynamics (multiple households, third-party caregivers, unusual schedules) or contested relocation.

• Cases where neutral investigation and a single, court-credible narrative can facilitate settlement.

The Role of the GAL

• Before engaging a GAL, clarify to your client what the role of the GAL is (and isn’t).

• The GAL’s primary role is to investigate and recommend what they believe is in the child’s best interests.

• Emphasize that the GAL’s mission is the child’s best interests – it’s not to “side” with either parent. The GAL will interview the child, parents, others; review records; and submit a written recommendation.

Explain the benefits to clients of a GAL

• Independent investigation: a GAL can collect school, medical, mental-health, and collateral information the court might otherwise lack.

• Credible, neutral voice: courts often view a GAL’s findings as a balanced third-party assessment.

• Child-focused framing: a GAL centers decisions on the child’s needs rather than parental positions.

How to prepare your client for a GAL’s process

• Interview conduct: coach the client to be calm, truthful, and concise. Discourage coaching the child, volunteering unasked-for gossip, or making inflammatory statements about the other parent. Remind clients that what they say may be summarized in a report.

• Records and permission: tell clients to gather relevant records (school, medical, mental-health, police, CPS, work schedules) and be prepared to sign releases. Discuss whether to withhold any records and the likely consequences.

• Child interviews: set expectations about the GAL interviewing the child (where, for how long, whether parent present). If the child is to be interviewed, prepare the parent to avoid discussing the interview with the child or trying to influence answers.

• Confidentiality: make clear which communications may be privileged (e.g., communications with the child’s attorney) and which likely are not (GAL interviews). Advise clients to treat GAL interviews as not privileged unless you confirm otherwise.

Cost allocation, retainers, and fee disputes

• Set expectations early: explain likely ranges of GAL fees and the potential for additional evaluations (psych, substance-testing, school assessments).

• Stipulate to cost-splitting if reasonable: where both parties will benefit from the services of a GAL, propose a pro rata sharing of the GAL’s fee, with any disputed allocations decided by the court.

• Retainer language (suggested elements for a client retainer or stipulation with opposing party):

   o Scope of work to be performed (investigation, interview(s), records review, written report, possible testimony).

   o Estimated fee and hourly rate, billing increments, and what services are included

/excluded (e.g., travel, copies, expert tests).

   o Payment schedule and consequences of nonpayment (suspension of work, court notice).

   o Timetable for completion and process for reasonable extensions.

   o Confidentiality and filing expectations: that the GAL’s report will be filed with the court and served on counsel.

How lawyers can facilitate a good experience with a GAL – Remember, the court may appoint a GAL without the client’s permission/request

• Early cooperation: offer records, a witness list, and proposed questions or areas of inquiry that reflect legitimate concerns. This builds credibility and may steer the inquiry to relevant topics.

• Centralize records: create an indexed binder or digital folder of school, medical, and other records for the GAL.

• Define scope: negotiate a clear, written scope (e.g., parental fitness, parenting-time recommendations, need for special education evaluation) and timelines.

• Maintain professional boundaries: be courteous but protect your client’s interests. Provide information but avoid ex parte communications about contested legal issues.

• Clarify methodology: ask the GAL about their investigative steps (who they will interview, what records they will review, whether they will rely on third-party assessments) and timeline.

• Stipulations to limit expense: consider stipulating to certain records’ authenticity or to joint authorizations to avoid duplication and reduce costs.

Ethical and procedural reminders for attorneys

• No ex parte efforts about substantive issues: do not attempt to influence the GAL’s investigative conclusions by undisclosed communications about contested facts. If you must provide records or clarifications, do so on the record or copy opposing counsel.

• Preserve privilege carefully: communications with a retained expert or child’s attorney may be privileged; communications with a court-appointed GAL typically are not. Advise clients accordingly and confirm privilege status early.

• Candor to the tribunal: correct known errors in pleadings and ensure your client doesn’t make false factual submissions to the court or GAL.

• Conflicts and impartiality: check for conflicts (prior representation, financial interest, relationships with the court) and disclose/waive as appropriate.

Practical checklists and templates

• Client-prep checklist before a GAL interview:

o Gather: school records, IEPs/504 plans, medical/mental-health records, police/CPS reports, prior court orders, OS employment/scheduling documentation.

o Identify people for GAL to contact and provide contact information: teachers, pediatricians, therapists, daycare staff, grandparents, coaches, employer/supervisor, neighbors who have regular contact, and any previous caregivers.

Documentation to bring to the interview/meeting with the GAL (or to provide promptly):

o Recent report cards, attendance records, IEP/504 plans.

o Current medication lists and recent medical/mental-health summaries.

o Police/CPS reports, protection-from-abuse orders, criminal case info.

o Work schedules, childcare schedules, travel plans, and prior parenting-time calendars.

o Prior court orders, parenting-time evaluations, prior GAL or custody evaluations, and any substance-use testing results.

o A short, dated chronology of key events from your client’s perspective (dates, witnesses, documents)

Communications guidance:

o Advise client not to coach the child, not to rehearse answers, and not to discuss the GAL interview with the child afterwards.

o Tell client to be truthful and concise; document concerns but avoid speculative or inflammatory accusations.

Listed below are some sample child interview questions (by developmental stage) to help you inform your client of what to expect. These are sample questions/prompts for GALs. If you want to suggest questions to the GAL, ensure they’re age-appropriate, culturally sensitive, and consistent with any child-counselor input. And keep in mind that the GAL is not obligated to ask any particular question and has the discretion to ask what the GAL believes is appropriate and relevant.

• Preschool (ages ~2–5)

o Where do you live? Who lives with you?

o Where do you sleep at Mom’s house? At Dad’s house?

o Who puts you to bed? Who helps you get dressed?

o Who do you feel scared of? Who makes you feel safe?

o What do you like to do with Mom? With Dad?

• Elementary (ages ~6–11)

o Tell me what a typical weekend looks like at each home.

o Who takes you to school or activities? Who helps with homework?

o Do you have a favorite place to be with Mom/Dad? Why?

o Has anyone told you anything about court or the other parent you didn’t like?

o Who do you talk to when you’re sad or worried?

• Adolescents (ages ~12+)

o Tell me how decisions about your schooling, health care, and activities are made.

o How do you get along with each parent? With step-family members?

o Do you want to live mostly with one parent? Why?

o Have you ever felt pressured to take sides? Explain.

o Has anyone tried to influence what you tell adults or professionals?

______________________

Jennifer Sullivan is the Sole Proprietor of Sullivan Family Law, PLLC, handling domestic and probate cases. Sullivan founded Sullivan Family Law in 2021 after 24 years of public service (including serving as the Probate Register and the Judicial Attorney to a circuit court judge) to the citizens of Washtenaw County. Sullivan has extensive experience in domestic relations cases, including mediating pre and post-judgment divorces, custody and parenting time disputes, and property division arbitration. She has been appointed as a guardian ad litem in domestic relations cases and has been court-appointed as both the guardian ad litem and the attorney in probate cases dealing with guardianships and conservatorships. 
She can be contacted at jensullivanesq@gmail.com or (734) 550-1060.

Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Bar Association newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Any foreign national who obtains legal status in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident is issued a Lawful Permanent Resident Card, commonly known as a “green card.”

Any foreign national who obtains legal status in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident is issued a Lawful Permanent Resident Card, commonly known as a “green card.” Pursuant to 8 USC 1304(e), “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.” While this federal statute has existed for decades, it has not been regularly enforced by USICE. Until recently. Therefore, a legal permanent resident could find themselves facing federal misdemeanor charges for an innocent moment of forgetfulness, and become saddled with a criminal record for failing to carry the green card.

Although legal permanent residents are notified of this requirement by USCIS when they first receive their green cards, many forget over the years. Therefore, if you represent any legal permanent resident clients, you should remind them of this potential federal criminal charge and associated consequences if they fail to produce their green cards when asked by law enforcement. All LPRs should maintain a front and back photo of their green cards on their phones, so that if they forget their cards they are able to produce some level of proof of their lawful status. It is unknown, however, whether producing a photo of one’s green card on their phone will be sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Therefore, the original green card should be carried.

If your LPR client does not have a valid unexpired green card in their possession, then they can apply for a new green card to be issued by USCIS. Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (Green Card), is available on USCIS’s website, and LPRs can file Form I-90 to obtain new green cards if they are lost, stolen, damaged, or expired. Filing the I-90 form on-line can also provide your LPR client with an immediate receipt notice from USCIS, which they should carry until the new green card is received. As USICE increases their enforcement of immigration laws, LPRs should also increase their preparedness.

Nicole Mackmiller of Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C. represents clients in Immigration, Family Law, and Probate matters. She started her legal career at a boutique immigration law firm in Detroit. Before joining PSED Law, Mackmiller operated her own immigration law firm, after leaving Mackmiller Manchester PLLC in Ypsilanti, where she was solely responsible for handling the firm’s immigration law case load, while assisting with probate and estate planning matters. Most recently, she served as the Supervising Attorney at the Eastern Michigan University Legal Resource Center. Mackmiller serves as Co-Chair of the Washtenaw County Immigration Section. She also volunteers as an advocate and speaker with the Alliance for Immigrants Rights and Reform - Michigan. Mackmiller earned her undergraduate degree in criminal justice from Madonna University, and her juris doctor from Ave Maria School of Law, where she was also a student client advocate at the law school's Asylum and Immigrant Rights Clinic. 

She can be reached at nmackmiller@psedlaw.com or at 734-665-4441.

Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Bar Association newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur.