Columns

Butzel attorney Jennifer Dukarski was a featured speaker during the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International’s Automated and Connected Vehicles Digital Summit on March 24. 

Dukarski’s session was titled, “Legal Issues of Connected Vehicles.” She examined legal issues emerging within the field of connected vehicles and will discuss a few current high-profile cases. 

Dukarski leads Butzel’s Connected and Autonomous Mobility Team. Her automotive experience as a former design engineer, Six Sigma master black belt, continuous improvement lead champion, and quality manager, gives her a unique perspective on balancing the legal issues and business applications of emerging automotive technology. 

Dukarski focuses her legal practice where technology, mobility and communications meet. A leader in the area of electrified, connected and automated vehicles, she negotiated some of the first robotaxi agreements in the world. 

A champion of the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI), Dukarski regularly advises and teaches on AI risk mitigation. She was named one of the 30 Women Defining the Future of Technology by Warner Communications for her innovative thoughts and contributions to the tech industry.

In addition, Butzel immigration law attorney Reginald A. Pacis participated in an “Immigration Law Panel” discussion on March 25, presented by the Immigration Law (Student) Association at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. 

Pacis will also participate in a “Business Immigration Panel” program on March 31, co-presented by the Immigration Law Student Association and the Business Law Society at Wayne State University Law School. The discussion will focus on the fundamentals of business immigration, recent policy and adjudication trends, and career paths in the field. 

Pacis focuses his practice in immigration law and has handled a variety of immigration matters including H-1B specialty occupation cases, L-1 Intracompany transfers, Labor Certification matters, Immigrant Visa Petitions/Adjustment of Status applications and interviews, TN Free trade cases, H-1B Department of Labor Investigations, I-9 employer verification compliance, and U.S. Port of Entry airport and land port interviews. 

He was named Immigration Lawyer of the Year in 2025, 2023 and 2013, respectively in the field of Immigration Law by The Best Lawyers in America and has been listed in Best Lawyers for several years. 

Pacis is a member of the American Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and the Samahang Pilipino Ng Oakland Filipino organization. He served two consecutive one-year terms from 2003 to 2005 as chairperson of the Michigan Chapter of AILA and was a member of the AILA National Board of Governors for those terms. 

Butzel is also pleased to announce that Sam S. Yousif has joined as an associate attorney in the firm’s Troy office. He partners with businesses to help them navigate complex corporate structures, mergers and acquisitions, and customary commercial transactions. 

A legal advisor for large and small businesses, Yousif provides comprehensive counsel tailored to each client’s unique needs. His practice is centered on helping organizations navigate the intricacies of corporate law, with a focus on contract drafting, negotiation, and the structuring of transactions. Much of Yousif’s work involves guiding clients through asset and entity acquisitions and dispositions.  

He partners closely with clients to structure deals that protect their interests and advance their goals.

In addition to transactional matters, Yousif advises on corporate structure and long-term planning. He assists businesses in choosing and maintaining entity forms that support growth and adaptability, from initial formation to complex reorganizations. 

Yousif earned a law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, and a Master of Accounting and Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Oakland University. Yousif was named to Michigan Super Lawyers – Rising Stars – Business/Corporate, 2024-2025.

•            •            •

Retired Judge Deborah Thomas will be honored with the Eleanor Roosevelt Award from the Michigan Democratic Women’s Caucus during a luncheon held on April 18.

During her career on the Wayne County Circuit Court bench, Thomas exemplified the highest ideals of the judiciary, ensuring that the courts serve not only as institutions of law, but also as instruments of fairness, dignity, and opportunity.  

Through her work establishing and presiding over one of Michigan’s largest Veterans Treatment Courts, she has shown that justice can be both principled and compassionate. Her community forums addressing expungement, human trafficking awareness, and firearm safety reflect her belief that the law must remain accessible and responsive to the people it serves.

•            •            •

Plunkett Cooney partner Douglas C. Bernstein was recently named by Lawdragon to its 2026 top 500 list of Leading Global Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers.

A member of Plunkett Cooney’s Bloomfield Hills office, Bernstein serves as the firm’s Business Law Department Leader. He concentrates his practice in the areas of commercial litigation, loan restructuring, commercial loan documentation, bankruptcy, banking-related litigation and appeals. His clients include regional and national banks, credit unions and loan servicers as well as automotive suppliers and charitable foundations.

Prior to joining Plunkett Cooney, Bernstein worked as an in-house attorney at Michigan National Corporation for more than 20 years. He subsequently joined the Standard Federal Bank Legal Department when the bank merged with Michigan National Corporation in 2001.

Bernstein earned his undergraduate degree in 1978 from Wayne State University and his law degree in 1982 from the Detroit College of Law. He has received several honors for his legal work, and he is a Fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy. Bernstein has also been honored by Michigan Lawyers Weekly as a Leader in the Law and Go To Lawyer for Business, and he is a 2023 inductee into the publication’s Hall of Fame.

•            •            •

Maddin Hauser is pleased to announce that Mitchell D. Myers has joined the firm. Representing businesses across the full spectrum of complex commercial disputes, including real property, construction, mortgages, financial services, and other business and transactional matters, Myers joins the firm’s Complex Litigation and Risk Advisory practice group.

A trial attorney, Myers’ advocacy skills serve him well in the courtroom, both at the trial and appellate levels. His experience also includes matters of general negligence, construction negligence and contract disputes, and business disputes such as defamation, slander/libel, and corporate interference. 

Prior to joining Maddin Hauser, Myers was a partner at a civil defense firm handling matters of general negligence, auto negligence, construction negligence and contract disputes, and business disputes including defamation, slander/libel, and corporate interference. He has also served as a managing litigation attorney for a no-fault insurer and defended clients’ interests in cases involving claim and delivery, insurance fraud, real property loss, insurance coverage and indemnity, municipal law, premises liability, and general civil litigation. 

Myers also possesses a securities background, with work on commodities, equities, and energy futures trading matters, including FINRA/AML/KYC compliance counseling.

•            •            •

Miller Johnson is pleased to welcome Robert M. (“Bob”) Birach and Ardiola Sinaj to the firm’s Immigration practice. Joining from Birach Law PC, they bring experience across the full spectrum of immigration law, including employment-based petitions, family-sponsored immigration, and appellate immigration litigation. Birach and Sinaj are based out Miller Johnson’s Detroit office.

Birach is an immigration attorney with nearly five decades of practice in Michigan. He focuses on complex immigration matters before federal agencies and courts, including removal defense, asylum claims, waivers of inadmissibility, and appellate litigation. He is also a recognized expert on H-2A (agricultural) and H-2B (nonagricultural) nonimmigrant temporary worker visas, to provide staffing for farms, wineries, nurseries, greenhouses, seasonal resorts, landscapers and other seasonal businesses. 

Birach’s work has earned national recognition, including an AV Preeminent® rating from Martindale-Hubbell for more than 20 years and repeated listings in Super Lawyers, Top Lawyer, and Best Lawyers, along with being named Lawyer of the Year in Immigration Law in 2012. Birach earned a law degree from Cooley Law School and a B.A. from Western Michigan University.

“We are excited to join Miller Johnson’s Immigration team,” said Birach. “We look forward to contributing to a team known for its excellence and deep commitment to the communities we serve.”

Sinaj brings more than a decade of experience representing individuals, families, and employers in a wide range of immigration matters, including employment-based petitions, family-sponsored immigration, waivers, humanitarian relief, and naturalization. Her practice focuses on helping clients navigate complex and rapidly changing immigration processes with clarity and a strong commitment to service. A long-standing member of Birach Law PC, she has played a central role in the firm’s immigration work for many years. Sinaj earned a law degree from Wayne State University Law School and a B.A. from Wayne State University.

Miller Johnson is also pleased to announce that Seth Filthaut has joined the firm’s Detroit office.  He joins as part of the firm’s Employment and Labor Practice, where he will work closely with employers on a wide range of workplace issues. 

Prior to joining the Miller Johnson, Filthaut was the director of Human Resources at Birmingham Public Schools.  In this role, his responsibilities included district-wide HR operations, labor strategy, collective bargaining, investigations, and compliance with federal and state employment laws. His role included negotiations with multiple unionized employee groups, administering discipline, managing grievances, advising on contract interpretation, and supporting district operations through policy development, workforce planning, and cost-saving initiatives.

Before entering public education leadership, Filthaut held HR and labor relations roles at multiple Fortune 500 companies. In these positions, he managed labor relations for large, unionized workforces represented by the UAW and USW, handled complex grievance and arbitration matters, conducted workplace investigations, administered discipline up to and including discharge, and led workforce actions such as large-scale layoffs and recalls.

•            •            •

Bodman PLC is pleased to announce that Jennifer Miller Oertel, co-chair of Bodman’s Exempt Organizations & Impact Investing Practice Group, has been appointed chair of the National Tax-Exempt Council’s State Regulatory Roundtable.

Miller Oertel is an expert on tax-exempt organizations law and impact investing. She provides business advice and practical legal guidance to a range of tax-exempt organizations and impact investors. She leverages her business law background in securities, private equity, mergers & acquisitions, and corporate governance to further the business interests of her tax-exempt clients and the investors who support them.

Miller Oertel is listed in The Best Lawyers in America under Nonprofit/Charities Law and is also recognized in Michigan Super Lawyers and DBusiness Top Lawyers as a leading practitioner for tax-exempt organizations law. Crain’s Detroit Business has selected her as a Notable Women in Law honoree and Michigan Lawyers Weekly selected her as a Leader in the Law. She is a frequent speaker and author on legal issues affecting nonprofits. 

Miller Oertel serves as the expert in residence for impact investing with the Council of Michigan Foundations and serves as a fellow for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation building the impact investing ecosystem in New Jersey. She is an adjunct professor at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Bodman is also pleased to announce that Muhannad (Moe) Al-Ujayli has joined the firm as an associate attorney in the High Net Worth Practice Group.

Based in Bodman’s Detroit office, Al-Ujayli advises high net worth individuals and families on personal and closely held business matters, as well as trusts and estate planning and administration, with a focus on taxation and wealth preservation.

Before joining Bodman, Al-Ujayli was an M&A tax associate at an international Big Four accounting firm, where he advised clients on transactions, tax structuring, stock purchases, and long-term planning strategies.

Al-Ujayli earned his law degrees from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and Wayne State University Law School.  He also earned a B.A. in Finance from Michigan State University Eli Broad College of Business.

•            •            •

Andrew Turner of Brooks Kushman moderated a panel at the PTAB Bar Association 2026 Annual Conference, leading an interactive roundtable session with PTAB judges.  The session featured small-group discussions with current and former Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges and provided attendees with an opportunity to engage directly with judges on PTAB practice. 

Turner is a registered patent attorney with degrees in electrical and mechanical engineering who focuses his practice on patent prosecution and post-grant proceedings. As co-chair of the firm’s post-grant proceedings group, he has worked on more than 50 IPR matters representing both petitioners and patent owners, as well as reexaminations, reissues, and appeals to the federal circuit. His experience spans autonomous and electrified vehicle systems, LED lighting, audio systems, electronics, and exercise equipment, along with IP portfolio management and opinion work. 

Before entering the legal field, Turner worked as an automotive engineer developing electro-mechanical systems, experience he now leverages to help clients navigate complex technical and business challenges.

By Laura A. Athens

Introduction

Med-Arb combines mediation and arbitration into a single, seamless alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process that blends collaboration and flexibility with finality. When efficiency is the goal, parties may choose to select the same ADR professional to serve as both mediator and arbitrator. If the dispute does not resolve during mediation, it proceeds to arbitration before the same neutral. This article explores the benefits and risks associated with a single neutral serving in this dual role and identifies safeguards to maximize advantages while minimizing potential drawbacks.

Features of Mediation and Arbitration

Mediation is a voluntary, confidential, and collaborative process facilitated by an impartial mediator. It provides a forum in which parties actively engage in problem-solving to reach their own resolution. Confidentiality is a key characteristic of mediation, allowing parties to explore settlement options without fear that proposals will be used against them in subsequent legal proceedings. Selfdetermination is equally important, as it permits informed decision-making regarding both process and outcome.

In mediation, key participants discuss interests and concerns, brainstorm options, and evaluate potential settlements. The emphasis is on future-oriented solutions rather than past conduct. The mediator lacks authority to impose a decision but by skillful questioning, may offer new perspectives on strengths and weaknesses of the case, likely potential outcomes, or reasonable settlement ranges. Mediation typically includes both joint sessions and private, confidential caucuses with each party and their legal counsel.

Arbitration, by contrast, is a private, efficient, quasi-judicial alternative to litigation. More formal and retrospective in focus than mediation, arbitration involves a neutral arbitrator, or arbitration panel, who reviews evidence, hears testimony, considers legal arguments, and issues a binding decision. Arbitration is particularly useful when mediation fails, compromise is unlikely, or parties seek a final resolution.

The arbitration process can be tailored to meet the needs of the parties. It may be as short or long, simple or complex, and as formal or informal, depending on the parties’ preferences. This flexibility allows arbitration to conserve time and resources while ensuring finality.

Benefits of Med-Arb

As a hybrid ADR model, Med-Arb has the potential to combine the strengths of mediation and arbitration by allowing the parties to initially attempt to resolve the dispute collaboratively. If they cannot achieve full resolution, the matter proceeds expeditiously to arbitration before a neutral who is already familiar with the case.

Although mediation and arbitration require distinct skill sets, an experienced ADR professional can effectively transition between roles. The mediator-arbitrator has been described as combining the analytical precision of a judge with the insight of a psychologist.i

Med-Arb promotes collaborative problem-solving and may preserve ongoing relationships by offering a meaningful opportunity for voluntary resolution before shifting to a more adversarial phase. It maintains privacy and party autonomy, as both processes are private, confidential, and can be structured to meet the parties’ specific needs.

The structure of Med-Arb creates additional incentives to settle. Knowing that arbitration will promptly follow mediation may encourage the parities to make realistic demands and engage in good-faith negotiation. Also, the prospect of a binding decision may narrow the gap between offers and counteroffers.

Med-Arb may expedite a voluntary resolution with a full or partial settlement. Even absent settlement, issues are often narrowed. Parties may abandon marginal claims, voluntarily exclude non-issues, or stipulate to undisputed facts, thereby streamlining the arbitration phase of the process.

Using the same neutral reduces duplicative effort. Selecting and educating two separate ADR professionals requires additional time and expense. Although mediation does not involve formal presentation of evidence, the sole neutral gains substantial knowledge about the dispute during mediation. This familiarity is likely to improve efficiency during arbitration. The rapport, trust, and confidence in the neutral developed during mediation may enhance party comfort in the arbitration phase.

Med-Arb is inherently flexible. Parties may specify a timeframe for mediation, limit the type and amount of discovery, or streamline arbitration procedures. They may agree to limit the number of witnesses, submit joint exhibits, or proceed on documents only. Because the mediator-arbitrator already understands the case, presentation time may be reduced.

Parties may also choose the form of arbitration award: standard, reasoned, or detailed with findings of fact and conclusions of law. A standard award is typically the most cost-effective. Settlement terms may be incorporated into a consent award, strengthening enforceability beyond that of a mediated agreement alone.

Risks of Med-Arb

Despite its advantages, Med-Arb poses certain risks. Critics identify concerns regarding confidentiality, impartiality, due process, diminished candor, and potential undue influence.ii
Confidentiality is foundational to mediation. Mediation communications—oral, written, or nonverbal—are generally inadmissible in subsequent proceedings, subject to limited exceptions, such as threats of harm or party agreement to disclosure.iii However, in Med-Arb, the same neutral hears confidential communications during mediation then later serves as arbitrator, therefore, non-disclosure of mediation communications to the ultimate decision-maker is not possible.

The Michigan Court Rule 2.412 (D)(1) and AAA Commercial Rule M-10 acknowledge that the parties may agree to waive the confidentiality privilege. Therefore, the Med-Arb agreement can expressly retain or waive mediation confidentiality.

Rule 408 of the Federal and Michigan Rules of Evidence similarly exclude offers of settlement from evidence in subsequent proceedings. The rationale is to encourage candid settlement discussions. In Med-Arb, however, exclusion is complicated because the neutral has firsthand knowledge of settlement offers.

Proponents point out that judges and juries are routinely instructed to disregard inadmissible evidence and judges often preside over trials following unsuccessful pre-trial settlement conferences. iv  Nevertheless, critics maintain that the mediator-arbitrator’s dual exposure raises unique concerns.

Due process issues also arise. Arbitration rules generally prohibit ex parte communications,v while mediation routinely involves caucuses. During caucus, a mediator may learn adverse information never disclosed to the opposing party. If the same neutral later serves as arbitrator, there is concern that such undisclosed information may consciously or subconsciously influence the award. The opposing party may have no opportunity to rebut the damaging information through presentation of contrary evidence or cross-examination, raising significant due process concerns.

Another criticism of Med-Arb is the neutral’s dual role may compromise impartiality and independence in arbitration because the neutral may be swayed by the offers exchanged during mediation. A mediator who actively engages in evaluating claims or suggesting settlement ranges may appear to have prejudged the case.vi This risk may be heightened in evaluative mediation, where the mediator offers opinions on the merits of the case and probable outcome. If the dispute proceeds to arbitration, parties may question whether the neutral can remain fully impartial.

Some commentators suggest that Med-Arb may chill candor. Parties might hesitate to propose innovative solutions or engage in frank discussions if the same neutral will later render a binding decision. The mediator-arbitrator may similarly avoid rigorous reality-testing to preserve perceived neutrality. The mediation participants may be reluctant to use caucus at all, potentially diminishing the effectiveness of mediation.vii

Concerns about undue influence have also been raised. Because the mediator-arbitrator ultimately holds decision-making authority, parties may feel pressured to settle.viii However, the risk of coercion often depends more on the individual neutral’s approach than on the structure of Med-Arb itself.

Essential Safeguards

Careful design and informed consent are critical to mitigating Med-Arb risks. Full disclosure of benefits and potential drawbacks should occur before the process begins. Written informed consent from parties and counsel is essential. A comprehensive Med-Arb Agreement should address confidentiality, the benefits, and risks of proceeding with the hybrid ADR process.

Selecting a well-trained, experienced neutral adept in both mediation and arbitration is paramount. One of the most significant risks occurs when an arbitration award appears to be based on confidential mediation communications. Such reliance may create grounds for setting aside an award based on bias or due process violations.

Procedural safeguards can further reduce risk. Conducting mediation exclusively in joint session, rather than caucus, avoids unilateral exposure to undisclosed information. Alternatively, the neutral may seek party consent before disclosing confidential information shared in caucus if essential to fairness. Employing a facilitative, rather than an evaluative, approach may further reduce perceptions of real or perceived bias and prejudgment.

An “opt-out” provision is one of the most straightforward and effective protections. The Med-Arb Agreement may permit any party—or the neutral—to request withdrawal prior to the arbitration phase if impartiality concerns arise during mediation. This preserves party self-determination and enhances confidence in the process.

At the inception of mediation, the neutral should confirm that parties understand the hybrid structure and provide an opportunity to ask questions. Ongoing transparency strengthens legitimacy of the Med-Arb process. 

Concerns about offers influencing arbitration may be addressed through modified high-low arbitration. For example, the highest and lowest mediation offers could define the permissible award range. 

Alternatively, parties may agree to a high-low range disclosed to the arbitrator only after the award is rendered. A confidential, pre-set range may help to ensure the neutral renders an arbitration award based solely on the evidence. If the award falls outside the agreed range, it is adjusted to the closest high or low amount. This approach narrows risk while preserving evidentiary integrity.

Certain ADR professionals may be particularly suited to the dual role. Those experienced in mediation and arbitration and comfortable maintaining clear role boundaries may be better positioned to manage the transition. They may be more interested in solving disputes in a creative way and willing to use their skills to facilitate efficient and effective resolutions for parties who knowingly and voluntarily decide to engage in Med-Arb with a single neutral. Ultimately, parties may conclude that the efficiencies and advantages of Med-Arb outweigh the risks, particularly when safeguards are thoughtfully implemented.

Conclusion

Med-Arb is a distinct option along the ADR continuum. When used in appropriate cases and conducted by a qualified neutral skilled in both mediation and arbitration, it can provide an efficient and flexible path to resolution. Parties electing to pursue this route should receive full disclosure of the benefits and risks of this approach and advised of the essential safeguards. With informed consent and careful procedural design, Med-Arb can effectively balance collaboration and finality while minimizing potential risks.
————————
i Sussman, Edna, Developing an Effective Med-Arb/Arb-Med Process, 2 New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer 71, 73 (Spring 2009); see also, Weisman, Martin and Stark, Sheldon, Is Med/Arb the Process for You? Mich. Bar J. (June 2015)(Med-Arb requires distinct skills, techniques, knowledge, and temperament in each phase of the process). PREMi professionals are experienced in providing Med-Arb services.
ii Pappas, Brian, Med-Arb and the Legalization of Alternative Dispute Resolution, 20 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 157 (Spring 2015).
iii Michigan Court Rule 2.412 (B)(2) (C) (D); Michigan Mediator Standards of Conduct V; AAA Commercial Rules and Mediation Procedures, Rule M-10; ; Section 4(a) of the Uniform Mediation Act (not been adopted in Michigan).
iv Blankley, Kristen, Keeping a Secret from Yourself? Confidentiality when the Same Neutral Serves both as Mediator and as Arbitrator in the Same Case (2011) available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/lawfacpub/122
v AAA Commercial Rule 20.
vi Welsh, Nancy, Switching Hats in Med-Arb: The Ethical Choices Required to Protect Process Integrity in Mediation Ethics: A Practitioner's Guide 213 (Omer Shapira eds., 2021). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1482; Rule III of the Mediator Standards of Conduct (mediator must avoid an actual or the appearance of a conflict of interest, defined as, “conduct or a relationship that could reasonably be viewed as creating an impression of potential bias or as raising a question about the impartiality or self-interest of the mediator.”)
vii See supra note 2.
viii See supra note 6.
————————
Laura A. Athens is an attorney, arbitrator, mediator, and facilitator with more than 30 years of litigation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) experience. Athens currently devotes her practice exclusively to ADR in a variety of matters, including civil rights, education, university faculty grievance, consumer, business, employment, vocational rehabilitation, guardianship, and automotive warranty cases.  Athens previously served as a hearing officer in special education and vocational rehabilitation due process hearings.  Athens is an associate of Professional Resolution Experts of Michigan (PREMi), and is on the roster of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Consumer Panel; DeMars & Associates, CAP Ford Motor, Porsche, and Home Construction Warranty Programs; and National Center for Dispute Settlement.  As an adjunct professor at Wayne State University Law School, Athens taught education law, health law and bioethics. She also taught Legal Research and Writing at Washington University School of Law as a visiting assistant professor. Athens has published numerous articles on arbitration, mediation, facilitation, education and employment law in the Michigan Bar Journal, the Legal News, Laches, Oakland County ADR Quarterly, and Mediate.com.

By Zenell Brown

In her March 31, 1776 letter, Abigail Adams wrote her husband, John Adams, “Remember the Ladies.” Mrs. Adams reminded the her husband of women’s need to have greater rights in the newly formed American government. Her request fell on deaf ears, but 250 years later on Women History Month, Women’s International Day, and Women Judges International Day the Detroit legal community has cause to remember and celebrate the women lawyers and judges, honoring our past and celebrating those who lift as they climb. 

“No women allowed, welcomed, or wanted” was the accepted business practice as women graduated from law schools in the late 1960s.  

Regardless of talent, women entered the legal profession facing challenges, barriers, restrictions, and stereotypes. Access to employment, elected positions, and professional associations was restricted. Dress and decorum were policed. It was an absurd thought that a woman could practice law or sit as a judge. 

The Michigan Supreme Court

The Michigan Supreme Court has existed since 1805. The first woman took the bench in 1973. Justice Mary Coleman was elected to the Michigan Supreme Court to a term of service beginning January 1, 1973. She was the first woman to serve as chief justice, holding that position from 1979 until her retirement in 1982. In her first year, she wrote a unanimous opinion that recognized married women's interest in their personal property. Since Justice Coleman, 14 women, many from the Detroit legal community, have served on the Michigan Supreme Court.  Currently, four women sit on the Michigan Supreme Court and Justice Megan Cavanagh serves as chief justice.  

Justices & Years of Service:
• Mary S. Coleman 1973–1982
• Patricia Boyle 1983–1998
• Dorothy Comstock Riley 1985–1997
• Elizabeth A. Weaver 1995–2010
• Marilyn Kelly 1997–2012
• Maura D. Corrigan 1999–2006
• Diane Hathaway 2009–2013
• Mary Beth Kelly 2011–2015
• Bridget Mary McCormack 2013–2022
• Joan L. Larsen 2015–2017
• Elizabeth T. Clement 2017–2025
• Megan K. Cavanagh 2019–Present
• Elizabeth M. Welch 2021–Present
• Kyra Harris Bolden 2023–Present
• Kimberly Ann Thomas 2025–Present

Their biographies are available in the Michigan Supreme Court historical Society website: https://www.micourthistory.org/justices/

The Michigan Court of Appeals

The Michigan Constitution of 1963 created the Michigan Court of Appeals. It commenced operations in 1965. In 1976, Dorothy Comstock Riley was appointed and became the first woman to sit on the Michigan Court of Appeals. Judge Karen Fort Hood was elected and became the first African-American woman on that bench in 2003. In 2022, Judge Sima Patel became the first woman of South Asian descent to serve on the Michigan appellate court. In 2025, Judge Mariam Bazzi was appointed, becoming the first Arab American woman to serve on the Michigan appellate court.

Third Circuit Court

The news headlines read, “Justice dons a skirt” when Lila J Neuenfelt was the first woman elected judge to the Third Circuit Court in 1941.  Cornelia Kennedy followed as the second woman in 1966. In 1980, Judge Lucile Watts took the bench. She was the first Black woman to be elected as a circuit court judge in Michigan. In 1997, Judge Kirsten Frank became the first Presiding Judge of Third Circuit Court’s newly created Family Division.  In 2002, the Michigan Supreme Court appointed Judge Mary Beth Kelly the chief judge of the Wayne Circuit Court, making her the first woman to lead that court. Many women from the Third Circuit like Judge Kelly ascended to higher benches, but in 2004 Judge Kym Worthy left the bench and became the first woman to serve as the Wayne County Prosecutor and the first African-American woman to serve as a county prosecutor in Michigan. In 2005, Judge Charlene Elder was appointed, becoming the first Arab- American Muslim woman judge in the country. Judge Patricia Fresard in 2023, was named as chief judge, becoming the second woman and the first Hispanic person to hold the distinction. These judges have worn skirts, dresses, pants, and hijabs and have ensured justice is accessible to all.

Detroit Recorder’s Court and District Courts in Wayne County

I am still learning and collecting pieces about women history and the Detroit Recorder’s Court and district courts in Wayne county. l look forward to sharing those in the future. In the meantime, here are a few women judge highlights to add to your knowledge:

 Martha W. Griffiths was the first woman elected as a judge of Detroit's Recorder's Court, taking the position in 1953. In 1966, Judge Geraldine Bledsoe Ford joined the bench, becoming the first Black woman judge in Michigan and the first Black woman in the United States elected to a judgeship without the benefit of a prior appointment. When Recorder’s Court merged with Wayne County Circuit Court in 1997, Judge Vera Massey Jones was serving as the chief judge. 

In 1974, Audrey Stroia was selected the first female judge for the 33rd District Court. She was instrumental in the found in the creation of a Downriver Bar Association as well as the Wayne County Family Bar Association.

In addition to the local judges, remember the women lawyers, women bar associations, the women in bar associations and women student associations in the local law schools.

Never underestimate the power of one: In 1970, Attorney Sue Weisenfeld, a Detroit practitioner advocated and won support of Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Brennan for women lawyers wearing pants in the courtroom. Chief Justice Brennan wrote,“ there is nothing inappropriate about trouser suits for women lawyers appearing in the Supreme Court, or any other court in the state. They have achieved wide acceptance among women of good taste in both business and social circles, and would not in these times be looked upon as mere sportswear.”

Local and Affinity Bar Associations

The local and affinity bar associations demonstrate the power of collective effort and collaboration to promote justice and the interests of women in the legal profession.

The Women Lawyers Association of Michigan was created in 1919 before women gained the right to vote.  Honorable Tanya Grillo is the current president. The Wayne reach encompasses Detroit and is led by its president, Jailah Emerson. WLAM Foundation Angel Carole Chiamp credited the association for breaking barriers and ensuring the right for women to enter the front doors of the Detroit Athletic Club and to sit unescorted at a bar.

Carole Chiamp was elected as the first woman President of the Detroit Bar Association in 1982. That was 18 years after Judge Cornelia Kennedy was the first woman named to the board of directors of the Detroit Bar Association. In the historical records at the Detroit Library, there is little mention of the women involved in the Detroit Bar other than the Ladies Reception Committee at a bar event. The Detroit Bar Association has had 10 women presidents since its inception in 1836. Stefanie Regan of Hickey Hauck Bishoff Jeffers & Seabolt will take the oath in June and become the 11th woman president.

The Black Women Lawyers Association of Michigan (BWLAM) was founded July 28, 1992 and incorporated on March 25, 1993.  BWLAM promotes civic education through law and the scholarship and opportunity for black women at all levels of education. Dorothy Dean is the current president and one of the 2026 initiatives is offering book awards for students to several law schools in the area.

State Bar of Michigan President Lisa Hamameh and President-Elect Erika Bryant like many of the previous women presidents of State Bar of Michigan have strong ties to the Detroit’s local and affinity bars. 

Law Schools

Phyllis Crocker served as the first woman Dean of the University of Detroit Mercy Law School (2014-2021).  During her tenure, the portrait of Judge Denise Langford Morris was installed in the school’s atrium, becoming the first official portrait of a woman on the wall. Judge Langford Morris was the first African American judge on the Oakland County Circuit Court. Jelani Jefferson Exum followed Phyllis Crocker as dean and became the first Black woman Dean for University of Detroit Mercy Law. 

 Wayne State University Law School had standouts as well. Joan Mahoney served as dean from 1998 to 2003. She was the first woman law school dean in Michigan. Prof. Frederica K. Lombard served as its first full-time female faculty member (starting in 1966), professor, and interim dean (2003-2004) until her retirement in 2007. She was a founding member of the school’s Commission on the Status of Women. 

The Michigan Women’s Hall of Fame, the Women Lawyers Association of Michigan, and the Black Women Lawyers Association of Michigan are dedicated collectors and the keepers of the records. Thanks to the individual efforts of those such as Lynn Seaks, Carrie Sharlow, Judge Cynthia Stephens, Attorney Nicole Smithson, Attorney Kristina Bilowus the history of Detroit women lawyers and judges is being preserved and remembered. 
————————
Zenell B. Brown is the fairness and accountability administrator  for the State Court Administrative Office. Brown previously served for more than 25 years in various roles at the 3rd Circuit Court culminating in nearly a decade as executive court administrator.

By Berl Falbaum

“Kill the robot!”

Somehow that is not as satisfying as “Kill the umpire” which I enjoyed shouting while sitting in the bleachers where the air is thin.

I knew the umpire was as blind as a bat even though I was 500 feet from home plate while he was right behind the batter.

But now I will have to vent my good-natured anger at a robot—yes, a robot—which the baseball major leagues will begin using this season to keep umpires honest. It is called the Automated Ball-Strike System (ABS).

And the robot doesn’t even have the courage to stand behind the batter, but is hidden in technology around the stadium.

As I understand it, three players—the batter, pitcher and catcher—can now ask for an instant replay to challenge calls of strikes and balls by umpires. The players do this by tapping their helmets but not by stomping their feet, kicking dirt, or calling umpires names I can’t print in this column.

Once a challenge is made, videos—a Hawk-eye camera system which captured the pitches with cameras around the stadium—will be replayed and shown, via animation, on the scoreboard and broadcast booths.

If I don’t like the decision, I guess I can scream at the scoreboard: “Who the hell programmed you?” Or: “Did your USB cord become entangled with the mouse?” Or: “Your motherboard obviously lost all memory.”

True, that’s enticing, but not as satisfactory as all the names I called umpires through the years, especially the ones who called the games when I played in neighborhood softball leagues.

I remember the time…nope, can’t tell that one. But it was a good one.  The cops agreed with me.

The system has been tested in the minor leagues and the turnover rate is pretty high. One report says that in spring training this year, 53 percent of 1,844 challenges were successful.

That made me feel good because it “proves” I was right more than 50 percent of the time in the bleachers. Who needs robots?

If a team wins a challenge, it can keep challenging. As soon as a team loses two challenges, it won’t have the ability to challenge again.

The key statistic fed into computers is a player’s height. They can crouch all they want to, but it won’t make any difference. The computers know what the players are doing. Umpires do not have to order batters to stand up straight.

But it does create a new problem now suffered by computers in businesses: Hacking. I can envision teams hiring “designated hackers” to be used in serious situations. Let’s say it is the seventh game of a World Series, in the bottom of the ninth and the batter is facing a 3-2 count with the bases loaded.

I can hear managers in both dugouts ask, “Where’s the hacker?  He’s up.” And I can see the umpires smile.

It also opens the doors to other questionable innovations, like programming computers to decode signals from third base coaches or steal signs from catchers to pitchers, a responsibility usually assigned to shortstops and second basemen.

The possibilities are endless and could put the 1951 baseball scandal involving the Giants and Dodgers to shame. Baseball lore has it that Giants Manager Leo Durocher had a system of stealing a catcher’s sign and had the Dodgers’ choice delivered to his batter, Bobby Thomson, who hit the “shot heard ‘round the world,” giving the Giants the pennant. It was, arguably, the most famous home run in baseball history.

No computers were involved.

Believer or not, one umpire, Bill Miller, actually rooted for the robot when he was challenged in a game between the Giants and Guardians in Scottsdale, Arizona. He called a ball on a batter who had a 0-2 count. On an open mic, Miller was heard saying, “Please be a strike,” meaning the batter would be out. (The robot confirmed Miller’s call.)

But no one could understand why Miller wanted to be wrong.  Some speculated it was hot and he wanted to end the game as quickly as possible because. Maybe he had a hot date.

But a colleague of his, Richie Garcia, doesn’t like the new system at all, complaining that umpires would be embarrassed in front of thousands by some “computer geek who doesn’t know anything about baseball.”

As a fan, I don’t know what to do. Keeping quiet in the bleachers does not sound appealing to me.  I’m confident the guy next to me, the one I have argued with for years, probably feels the same way.

What if the computer I decide to cuss out for what I believe is a bad decision is armed with a long-range laser? What if it calls a computer buddy and asks it to jam my printer? 

I am also curious what baseball purists of all the yesterdays would think of this development. We could ask a neutral computer.

I guess the best thing to do is praise Hawk-eye for calling a good game and invite it out for a beer.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.

By Marie E. Matyjaszek 

Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 3.206 provides requirements for starting a domestic relations case, including the basics of what needs to be in the complaint, requesting spousal support, and providing a Verified Financial Information Form (VFIF). See MCR 3.206(C)(2).

The VFIF became required in divorce, separate maintenance and annulment cases in 2020, and is a sworn document created by the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO), form CC320. It requires parties to disclose personal information such as benefits from their employer, sources of income, real estate, financial accounts, retirement benefits, property, debts and more. Parties have 28 days after the defendant first responds to the complaint to serve the completed form on each other. 

If parties agree (in writing, of course) to waive exchange of the form, or if they have an executed consent judgment, final order or settlement agreement when the case is filed, the VFIF is no longer required. For those impacted by domestic violence or assault, certain identifying information can be left out of the completed form, but you will be required to explain to the court why information was omitted.

Discovery is an integral part of litigating and finalizing the case – it’s rare that both parties know all the little details about their assets and debts. By requiring the VFIF to be exchanged at the outset of the case, both sides get a jump start on what needs to be explored deeper. 

Discovery can be extremely time consuming and costly for both sides, especially when one party has taken primary responsibility for paying bills, investing money or otherwise assumed financial control over the estate (whether agreed upon or not). The other side may be left in the dark, requiring more aggressive discovery tactics, more subpoenas, more interrogatories, more depositions. The VFIF helps reduce the amount of time and money needed to give both parties a full picture of the marital estate and resolve the matter. 

Transparency is crucial to the court process, no matter what case is being heard. While some argue that transparency doesn’t exist within the judicial system, the VFIF attempts to combat that belief, setting the tone that full disclosure is not voluntary, but mandatory.
————————
Marie E. Matyjaszek is a judicial attorney at the Washtenaw County Trial Court; however, the views expressed in this column are her own. She can be reached by e-mailing her at matyjasz@hotmail.com.