Columns

In today’s digital world, artificial intelligence (AI) tools are everywhere. Many homeowners, business owners, and policyholders turn to AI chatbots for quick answers about insurance coverage, insurance claims, or legal questions about insurance law. While AI can provide helpful general information in limited circumstances, it is not a substitute for legal advice from an experienced insurance attorney. 

By Rabih Hamawi

In today’s digital world, artificial intelligence (AI) tools are everywhere. Many homeowners, business owners, and policyholders turn to AI chatbots for quick answers about insurance coverage, insurance claims, or legal questions about insurance law. While AI can provide helpful general information in limited circumstances, it is not a substitute for legal advice from an experienced insurance attorney. 

Mistaking AI guidance for professional counsel can lead to costly mistakes when filing insurance claims or dealing with insurers.

Why AI Cannot Give Legal Advice

AI tools, including ChatGPT, Bing AI, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Claude (Anthropic), Perplexity AI, and Grok (xAI), can generate responses based on patterns in data, but they cannot:

• Analyze your personal or commercial insurance policy in detail

• Interpret complex legal language specific to your jurisdiction

• Provide advice tailored to your unique situation

• Represent you in disputes with insurance companies

• Represent you in court when suing an insurance company

Only an experienced insurance attorney can review your policy, evaluate coverage, and guide you on your legal options. Using AI as a sole source of guidance can create misunderstandings or lead to denied claims.

Common AI Misunderstandings About Insurance Coverage 

Many policyholders assume AI can fully explain insurance coverage, but it often provides only general information. AI cannot review your specific policy, identify exclusions, or confirm whether a particular loss is covered.

Relying solely on AI can lead to mistakes, such as misunderstanding coverage or missing critical claim requirements. This often causes confusion, such as:
Coverage assumptions – AI may generalize insurance terms, but cannot confirm if your policy includes specific protections.

Policy exclusions – AI might not detect subtle exclusions in your policy, which insurers can use to limit or deny claims.

Claim procedures – Filing a claim incorrectly can reduce your reimbursement or void coverage. AI can suggest steps, but these may not match your insurer’s requirements.  

Example: A homeowner asks AI if flood damage is covered. AI responds based on general knowledge: “Some homeowners insurance includes flood coverage.” In reality, most standard policies exclude flood damage, and only a flood policy or endorsement provides coverage.

How Insurance Coverage Appears in Your Policy

Insurance coverage is typically structured as:

Declarations Page – Summarizes your coverages, limits, and deductibles

Insuring Agreement – Explains what your insurer promises to cover

Exclusions – Lists perils not covered

Conditions – Details requirements to maintain coverage (e.g., notice deadlines, documentations, submitting to an examination under oath, etc.)

AI can explain these sections generally, but its explanation should not be construed as legal advice. AI cannot tell you whether your specific incident is covered or whether you have complied with the policy conditions. 

How Insurers Often Limit or Deny Coverage

Insurance companies often deny or reduce claims based on:

Policy exclusions – Damage or events not covered in the policy

Late notice or improper filing – Missing deadlines or submitting incomplete forms

Documentation gaps – Lack of evidence proving loss or damage

Policy misinterpretation – Insurers may argue your claim falls outside coverage 

Relying solely on AI increases the risk of common AI misunderstandings about insurance coverage, which can lead to denied claims.
 
Practical Mistakes to Avoid When Using AI for Legal Questions

Here are the most common mistakes policyholders make when relying on AI:

Assuming AI is a licensed attorney – AI cannot represent you or provide legal advice.

Skipping policy review – Blindly following AI guidance without reading your policy can lead to coverage mistakes and claim denials.

Ignoring deadlines – AI might not highlight critical timelines in your claim process.

Overlooking exclusions – AI cannot detect nuanced exclusions that insurers exploit.

Sharing sensitive information – Inputting policy numbers or personal details into AI tools may compromise privacy.

Do not use AI except for basic explanations, and always verify coverage details with an experienced insurance attorney.

Attorney & Counselor Rabih Hamawi has extensive expertise in insurance coverage, business negotiations, and commercial litigation. He focuses his practice on representing businessowners, homeowners, property owners, and other insurance policyholders in fire, property damage, and insurance-coverage disputes with insurance companies and in errors-and-omissions cases against insurance agents. Reach Law Office of Rabih Hamawi at (248) 905-1133.

Many policyholders who have disputes with their insurers, and decide to sue them, often find themselves asking the same pressing question: “How long will this lawsuit take and what can I expect?” It’s a natural concern, as insurance claims—especially those involving significant property damage, fire losses, or denied insurance coverage—can have a major impact on an insured-plaintiff's finances, daily life, and peace of mind.

By Rabih Hamawi
Law Office of Rabih Hamawi P.C.

Many policyholders who have disputes with their insurers, and decide to sue them, often find themselves asking the same pressing question: “How long will this lawsuit take and what can I expect?” It’s a natural concern, as insurance claims—especially those involving significant property damage, fire losses, or denied insurance coverage—can have a major impact on an insured-plaintiff's finances, daily life, and peace of mind.

While every lawsuit is unique and timelines can vary depending on the complexity of the case, insurance lawsuits typically take at least one to two years, not including appeals. 

This is due to the multiple stages involved in litigation, including filing the complaint, exchanging evidence, engaging in discovery, participating in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution, and potentially going to trial. By understanding these stages and what to expect at each step, plaintiffs can set realistic expectations, plan accordingly, and remain proactive throughout the legal process.

Preparing for a Successful Insurance Lawsuit

Success in an insurance lawsuit doesn’t start in the courtroom—it starts long before you file. It starts when you report a claim for the very first time. Preparation is everything. This means that as a start, you must carefully review your policy, organize all correspondence with your insurer, gather photos and videos, repair estimates, invoices, and any expert reports that support your claim.

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your case allows you to anticipate challenges and respond effectively. Being thorough at this stage not only strengthens your position but also sets the tone for the entire litigation process, giving you confidence and control as you move forward. The more prepared you are, the more likely your case will proceed smoothly and increase your chances of a favorable outcome.

Filing the Lawsuit 

The process begins when your attorney formally files a complaint with the court. In an insurance lawsuit, this usually involves claims for property damage, fire loss, or denied insurance coverage. Once filed, the insurance company is then officially notified and served, and it is required to respond, by answering the complaint.

The Answer and Preliminary Motions

After serving your complaint on you insurer, it typically has a set period of time to file an answer. When it answers, the insurer admits or denies your claims and may raise defenses. At this stage, either party may also file preliminary motions, such as motions to dismiss, which can slightly extend the timeline.

Discovery Phase

The discovery phase is one of the most time-intensive parts of litigation. During discovery, both sides exchange evidence, documents, and witness information. Depositions, interrogatories, and requests for production help build each party’s case. In insurance disputes, this phase can take several months or even over a year, especially if experts are involved, such as engineers or fire investigators.

Pre-Trial Mediation and Motions

Even before a trial, there are often opportunities to resolve the case. Settlement negotiations or mediation can sometimes resolve disputes faster. But if negotiations fail, parties may file pre-trial motions to clarify issues, exclude evidence, or request summary disposition or judgment. Each motion can add weeks or months to the process.

Trial

If the case proceeds to trial, the court schedules hearings and trial dates, which can be influenced by the court’s docket. A typical trial may last several days to weeks, depending on the complexity of the case.

Post-Trial and Appeals

After the trial, either party may file appeals, which can extend the resolution timeline by additional months or even years. But even without appeals, most insurance disputes take at least two years from filing to resolution, and sometimes more.

Key Takeaways 

Insurance lawsuits are often complex and involve detailed evidence and expert testimony.

The process typically lasts one to two years, or more.

Understanding each stage—filing, discovery, pre-trial motions, trial, and possible appeals—helps policyholders stay prepared and avoid surprises.

If you are dealing with a denied insurance claim or ongoing insurance dispute, working with an experienced insurance attorney can streamline the process, ensure your rights are protected, and help you pursue the compensation you deserve.
 –––
Attorney & Counselor Rabih Hamawi has extensive expertise in insurance coverage, business negotiations, and commercial litigation. He focuses his practice on representing businessowners, homeowners, property owners, and other insurance policyholders in fire, property damage, and insurance-coverage disputes with insurance companies and in errors-and-omissions cases against insurance agents. Law Office of Rabih Hamawi can be reached at (248) 905-1133. 

Very few business lawsuits arrive without warning. In practice, most disputes give off clear signals long before a demand letter appears or a complaint is filed. The difficulty is not that those signs are hidden, but that they are easy to rationalize away when you are focused on running a company.

By Zana Tomich
Dalton &?Tomich PLC

Very few business lawsuits arrive without warning. In practice, most disputes give off clear signals long before a demand letter appears or a complaint is filed. The difficulty is not that those signs are hidden, but that they are easy to rationalize away when you are focused on running a company.

After years of working with businesses as outside general counsel, a pattern emerges. The same behaviors, the same shifts in tone, and the same breakdowns in relationships tend to precede litigation. When those signals are recognized early, many disputes can be resolved quietly. When they are ignored, the path to court is often difficult to avoid.

One of the earliest indicators is a sudden change in communication. When a customer, vendor, partner, or employee who was once responsive begins to go quiet, something is usually happening behind the scenes. Emails go unanswered. Calls are returned late, if at all. Meetings are postponed or canceled. The tone, once informal and collaborative, becomes careful or distant.

People rarely disengage when they feel satisfied or secure. Silence is often strategic. It allows time to gather information, review documents, and seek advice without alerting the other side. In many disputes, this quiet period marks the transition from frustration to preparation.

Another common warning sign is a noticeable decline in contract performance. Missed deadlines, inconsistent quality, or unexpected disputes over invoices often signal that a business relationship is under strain. In some cases, one party begins reinterpreting the scope of work or insisting on contract terms that had previously been applied loosely or not at all.

As performance drifts, trust erodes. Once trust begins to break down, parties tend to document more aggressively. Emails become longer and more formal. Minor issues are memorialized. Phrases like “that’s not what we agreed to” appear with increasing frequency. This shift toward documentation is rarely accidental; it often reflects a growing concern that the relationship may not end cooperatively.

Employment disputes follow a similar pattern, though they usually begin on a more personal level. Employees rarely frame concerns in legal terms at the outset. Instead, they express feelings of unfairness or being singled out. Statements such as “I don’t feel supported,” “this feels like retaliation,” or “management doesn’t treat people equally” often appear before any formal complaint is made.

Even when management disagrees with the employee’s perspective, these statements matter. They signal that the employee is beginning to view workplace issues through the lens of rights and protections. 

Without careful handling, what starts as a workplace grievance can evolve into a claim that carries legal and reputational consequences.

Another strong indicator of impending conflict is a sudden insistence on documentation. Customers who previously accepted work without question may begin demanding detailed reports, timestamped records, or strict adherence to contractual procedures. Requests for clarification about conversations that occurred months earlier may surface unexpectedly.

This change is rarely about organization alone. More often, it reflects an effort to build a record; either to justify withholding payment or to support a future claim. When this happens, it becomes especially important for a business to ensure that its own records are accurate, complete, and consistent.

Breakdowns with vendors or partners also tend to show themselves early. A party who begins ignoring payment terms, confidentiality obligations, or performance standards may be experiencing financial strain or reevaluating the relationship. In other cases, they may believe that the other side breached first. Once formed, that belief often becomes the foundation of a legal dispute.

One of the more subtle signals appears in casual conversation. When someone mentions having spoken to a family member or friend who is a lawyer, or raises concerns about whether something is “legal,” the dynamic has shifted. These comments suggest that legal options are being explored, even if no formal steps have been taken.

Finally, there is the instinctive sense that something is off. Business owners are often quick to dismiss that feeling, telling themselves that tensions will pass or that long-standing relationships will prevent escalation. 

In hindsight, many disputes can be traced back to a moment when a concern was noticed and then set aside.

When these warning signs appear, timing matters. Issues addressed early can often be resolved with a clarifying conversation, a written adjustment, or a modest course correction. Left unattended, the same issues tend to harden into positions that are difficult to unwind.

Litigation is rarely the product of a single event. More often, it is the end result of a series of missed opportunities to intervene. Businesses that pay attention to the early signals are better positioned to protect their operations, relationships, and resources before conflict becomes unavoidable.

Medical applications of artificial intelligence usually require a clinician to be involved—but clinicians may be ill equipped to fill oversight roles, Professor Nicholson Price argues in a new paper.

By Bob Needham
Michigan Law

Medical applications of artificial intelligence usually require a clinician to be involved—but clinicians may be ill equipped to fill oversight roles, Professor Nicholson Price argues in a new paper.

Clinicians are often unavailable, ineffective, or both, Price writes in the Emory Law Journal. Alternative structures will be necessary for AI to assist in providing quality patient care, he says.

Price recently answered five questions on the issue:

1. Your article focuses on the practice of using a person to ensure that AI is working properly. Why is this important?

This paper draws from a piece that I wrote with Rebecca Crootoff at the University of Richmond Law School and Margot Kaminski at the University of Colorado Law School on the concept of “Humans in the Loop.” What this means is that in a specific decision, there is a human who is involved in that decision. It’s not just left up to the AI. 

For example, in a medical setting, if you had a patient who took an image of a lesion on their arm and an AI system analyzed that and came back with a diagnosis that said the lesion is precancerous, that decision would not have a human in the loop. If instead there’s an image of the lesion and an AI system flags it as potentially precancerous and a dermatologist confirms that it’s precancerous, we’ve added a human into the decisional loop.

This is important because it’s a real go-to fix for situations where an algorithm might not get everything quite right. Maybe the algorithm is not right for a particular patient. Maybe it’s biased, maybe it has errors, maybe it’s not kind. Whatever problem you have within an algorithmic system, a frequent solution is to put a human in the loop to make sure the algorithm is performing correctly. 

2. You note that one problem with doing this in medical settings is that clinicians are not particularly effective in this role. Why not?

Empirically speaking, clinicians—at least as far as we’ve been able to tell—often aren’t great at catching AI errors. Double-checking requires time, and time is something a lot of clinicians just don’t have. 

Another part of this is automation bias, which arises when you’ve got a system in which a machine is giving you answers over time. If it does a pretty good job, you’ll tend to defer to the machine. 

Then there’s a question of training. We are training young doctors to look at these systems and identify algorithmic errors. There’s a program at Michigan Medicine (DATA-MD) that helps clinicians understand how to use medical AI, what to look for, what problems to be aware of. But there are lots of physicians who were trained a while ago, and this was just not part of their training.

3. The other issue you discuss is that clinicians are not necessarily even available. How does that play out?

It’s easy to look at the question of a clinician in a loop and think, how is this AI system going to interact with a trained expert doctor who has the time to interact with it? That’s certainly an important question to ask. Yet frequently, we’re just not going to have that person around. 

One of the potential benefits of AI is the ability to extend care to folks who otherwise don’t have access to it. But if you expect that that care is going to be supervised by a specialist, you’re just recreating the initial problem. If you have a tool that can do something you might have needed an ­ophthalmologist to do—but the tool only works if you have an ophthalmologist to double-check the answers—you just lost the value of the tool. 

There are ways to try to deal with some of these issues, but the idea of AI ­driving broad access to care is really ­challenging to square with the requirement that we have an expert ­double-checking these answers.

4. What should be done differently?

First, just be aware that this is a problem. Slapping a human into the loop is a deeply ingrained and easy solution, but it’s not a good solution in many situations. 

Second, to the extent that we do have humans to be in the loop—which I recognize they will be, for a long time, in lots of contexts—you need to enable them to succeed. That means identifying what you expect the humans to do. If you say, “I want you to explain the results of this to patients and be kind and empathetic,” 
that’s one important thing a human can do. If you say, “I want you to double-check these results and make sure they’re accurate,” that’s a different thing.

Third, we need monitoring to make sure the system—the combination of human and AI—is performing well over time. 

5. You also suggest standards for systems and governance?

Yes. One of the challenges that arises in this space is designing systems. The places that’ll be able to spend the most effort on getting that right are places like Michigan or Harvard or Memorial Sloan Kettering—places that have lots of resources. 

But what if we really want, in addition to those places getting better, to enable lots of care for lots of folks? There’s a real role for nongovernmental organizations, policy makers, and academic medical centers to work together to develop standards and best practices. 

There is some effort to develop those frameworks happening now. It’s really important that that work continue and be supported and be widely distributed to help enable all sorts of different places to have AI and humans working well together—or to just recognize that sometimes you’re not going to have a human in the loop at all.

There is a moment in the legal profession that receives surprisingly little attention. It is not the first day of law school. Not graduation. Not even bar passage itself.
It is the space between passing the bar exam and becoming licensed—the quiet, psychological crossing from Juris Doctor to Esquire. And for many professionals, that moment carries more weight than they ever expected.

By Dan Ringo

There is a moment in the legal profession that receives surprisingly little attention. It is not the first day of law school. Not graduation. Not even bar passage itself.

It is the space between passing the bar exam and becoming licensed—the quiet, psychological crossing from Juris Doctor to Esquire. And for many professionals, that moment carries more weight than they ever expected.

For years, many of us have lived in an in-between identity. We have an education. We speak the language. We analyze, advise, and operate with legal rigor. Yet we hesitate sometimes reflexively to claim the title we trained for.

If any of the following sound familiar, you are not alone:

Are you tired of correcting colleagues and family members who call you an attorney?

Are you tired of prefacing comments with, “but I’m not a licensed attorney…”?

Have you ever felt slighted when someone made it clear you weren’t an attorney or hadn’t passed the bar—as if questioning the legitimacy of your legal knowledge or your skill set?

This is the psychological middle ground many JDs occupy: credentialed in education, capable in practice, yet professionally unfinished.

You earned the JD. But you never took that final step to becoming “Esq.”

The Identity Shift No One Prepares You For

Passing the bar is not merely an academic achievement, it is an identity transformation.

For professionals who built full careers before law, this shift can feel disorienting. You may already carry titles like executive, consultant, engineer, manager, or entrepreneur. Becoming “Attorney” does not replace those identities; it reframes them. It sharpens your authority, clarifies your role, and fundamentally changes how others perceive your voice in the room.

Yet many JDs delay or abandon the bar not because of inability, but because of timing, bandwidth, and structure. Life expands. Careers deepen. Responsibilities multiply. The window never seems to open.

But here is a truth worth stating plainly: no one who worked for a JD would willingly refuse the chance to become Esq. The desire is there. The path exists. What is often missing is permission—to re-engage seriously, intentionally, and without apology.

I Know This Middle Space Personally

I sat for the bar in 2021 at age 47 while working full-time. I believed my professional discipline would carry me. It did not.

I missed the exam by eight points not because I lacked capability, but because I underestimated the immersion and structure required. I tried to “fit” bar prep around life instead of temporarily reorganizing life around bar prep.

Four years later, at age 51, still working full-time, I returned with intention, discipline, and a clear plan. This time, I crossed the finish line.

The difference was not intelligence. It was execution.

Why Finishing Matters—Professionally and Economically

A JD is powerful. A JD with a law license is transformative.

Licensed attorneys earn, on average, significantly more over the course of their careers than bachelor’s-degree holders and often substantially more than JDs in non-licensed roles. Median attorney compensation now exceeds $150,000 nationally, and the long-term earnings delta compounds into hundreds of thousands of dollars over a career.

Beyond compensation, licensure unlocks mobility. The Uniform Bar Exam allows portability across jurisdictions, creating geographic and professional flexibility non-licensed JDs simply do not have.

Then there is access: bar associations, leadership pipelines, mentoring circles, CLE communities, and professional networks that amplify credibility and opportunity. “Esq.” is not merely a suffix—it is an entry credential to an ecosystem.

The Commitment Is Smaller Than You Think

The hardest part is already behind you. You earned the degree.

What remains is not another program or years of schooling, but a defined season of focus:

   • A committed exam date
   • A disciplined study structure
   • Protected time
   • Accountability
   • A mindset shift

The bridge from JD to Esq. is not miles wide. It is a short, concentrated push—if approached honestly and deliberately.

Why Many JDs Stall—and How to Move Forward

Delay has a cost. Each year unlicensed widens the opportunity gap.

Restarting does not get easier. Life does not slow down on its own.

And “Esq.” carries identity weight. It validates your training and positions you with authority.

But here is the reframe that matters most: you are not behind. You are unfinished.

An Action Plan for Completion

1. Commit to an exam date.

2. Restructure your schedule for a defined study window.

3. Choose a preparation model that enforces accountability.

4. Build a repeatable daily routine.

5. Simulate exam conditions regularly

6. Engage your bar community early.

7. Adopt the identity: Esq. in progress.

This is not guesswork. It is execution.

Finish What You Started

Your JD is an investment. Your Esq. is the return.

No one earns a Juris Doctor intending to stop short. That final credential is within reach. It requires structure, commitment, and a temporary season of sacrifice.

If it was possible at 52, with a full-time executive role and real responsibilities, it is possible for you.

Your journey is not over. It is waiting for completion.

Finish it. Step into it. Become who you trained to be.
—————
Dan Ringo, Esq. is the Vice President of Operations and Compliance for SEEL, LLC, a Detroit based Energy Efficiency Program Implementer. He is also author of “JD to Esq: Passing the Bar Past 50.”

Many Michigan business owners are feeling something they have not felt in a while: a bit of breathing room. Supply chains have steadied. The pace of change feels less frantic. Yet from where I sit, advising mid-sized Michigan companies day in and day out, this is not a year to get comfortable. The risks have not disappeared; they have simply become quieter and more complex.

By Zana Tomich
Dalton & Tomich

Many Michigan business owners are feeling something they have not felt in a while: a bit of breathing room. Supply chains have steadied. The pace of change feels less frantic. Yet from where I sit, advising mid-sized Michigan companies day in and day out, this is not a year to get comfortable. The risks have not disappeared; they have simply become quieter and more complex.

The businesses that struggle in 2026 will not be caught off guard by a brand-new law. More often, problems grow out of familiar issues that were left unattended for too long. The companies that do well tend to be the ones that treat legal planning as part of running the business, not something reserved for emergencies.

Artificial Intelligence Is Now a Business Risk, Not a Tech Experiment

Most Michigan companies I work with are already using artificial intelligence in some form, often without calling it that. It shows up in hiring platforms, marketing tools, customer communications, and internal drafting. As 2026 unfolds, the legal conversation around artificial intelligence has shifted. The question is no longer whether businesses are using it, but whether they understand how it is being used and who is responsible when something goes wrong.

Michigan does not yet have a stand-alone artificial intelligence statute, but federal guidance is increasingly shaping how courts and regulators evaluate automated decision-making, particularly in employment and consumer-facing contexts. At the same time, contracts are quietly doing much of the regulating. Vendors and customers are asking for representations about artificial intelligence use, data sources, human oversight, and cybersecurity safeguards. Under Michigan law, those provisions are likely to be enforced as written, which means companies need to be comfortable with the commitments they are making before they sign.

Data privacy expectations are catching up with smaller companies

Many Michigan business owners still assume data privacy is an issue only for large technology companies. That assumption is becoming riskier each year. As additional state privacy laws take effect across the country, Michigan businesses can find themselves subject to new requirements simply by collecting data from customers or users who live elsewhere.

Michigan’s Identity Theft Protection Act has been in place for years, but expectations around compliance have matured. Regulators increasingly expect written policies, documented safeguards, and a clear plan for responding to a breach. 

Informal practices that once seemed reasonable can look careless when reviewed after an incident, especially when multiple states are involved.

Worker Classification and Remote Work Remain High-Risk Areas

Few areas create more avoidable exposure for Michigan companies than worker classification. In 2026, both federal agencies and Michigan regulators continue to scrutinize independent contractor arrangements, particularly in professional services, logistics, and remote roles. The analysis remains highly fact-specific, and mistakes often lead to cascading consequences that include wage claims, tax exposure, and benefit issues.

Remote and hybrid work have added another layer of complexity. Wage and hour compliance, overtime tracking, and expense reimbursement obligations do not disappear simply because work happens off-site. Many employee handbooks and compensation structures no longer reflect how work is actually performed, which can leave well-intentioned employers exposed.

Michigan Business Transitions Are Accelerating

Across Michigan, more owners are beginning to think seriously about what comes next. For some, that means a sale. For others, it means an internal buyout or a generational transition. Private equity interest remains strong, but buyers are far less forgiving of informality than they once were. Gaps in governance, undocumented processes, and weak cybersecurity practices tend to surface quickly during due diligence and often affect value.

Even companies that are not actively marketing themselves benefit from thinking like a future buyer. Clear decision-making authority, clean financial practices, and documented systems tend to make businesses easier to operate and more resilient, regardless of whether a transaction occurs.

Nonprofits and Mission-Driven Entities Face More Oversight

Michigan nonprofits and organizations that work closely with them are operating under increased scrutiny in 2026. The Michigan Attorney General’s Charitable Trust Section continues to focus on governance practices, conflicts of interest, and fundraising transparency, while the Internal Revenue Service remains attentive to board independence and compliance.

At the same time, more organizations are exploring benefit corporations and other hybrid structures to balance mission and sustainability. These models can be effective, but only when the underlying governance documents clearly define roles, authority, and fiduciary obligations.

Final Thought

What unites these trends is accountability. Regulators, customers, employees, and business partners are asking better questions and expecting clearer answers. Michigan law has long favored preparation over improvisation, and that remains true in 2026.
Companies that integrate legal foresight into everyday decision-making, rather than treating counsel as a last resort, will be best positioned to manage risk, protect value, and grow with confidence.
2026 is well underway. The opportunity now is to mind your Michigan business before someone else is forced to do it for you.
—————
Zana Tomich is a seasoned attorney with over two decades of experience advising businesses and nonprofit organizations.