Columns

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.

This article serves as the twelfth and concluding installment in a comprehensive 12-part series on domestic arbitration, designed to provide a clear and practical guide through every stage of the process. In this edition, Enforcing and Collecting Arbitration Awards: The Final Step Toward Justice, we examine the legal framework and procedural steps involved in enforcing an arbitration award and securing compliance. With this final chapter, we bring the series on domestic arbitration to its conclusion. An arbitration award, no matter how well reasoned or elegantly written, achieves its true purpose only when it is enforced. The journey from hearing to award is the heart of arbitration—but enforcement is its lifeblood. Without it, even the most meticulous proceeding risks becoming a paper victory.

From Award to Judgment: Understanding the Legal Bridge

Once an arbitrator issues a final award, the prevailing party’s focus must shift swiftly from persuasion to enforcement. In domestic arbitration, this usually begins with confirming the award in court. Under Sections 9 through 13 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and comparable state statutes, a party may petition the appropriate court—typically a circuit or federal district court—to confirm the award and have it entered as a judgment. Timing is critical. The FAA provides a one-year window from the date of the award to file a petition for confirmation, though prompt action is always best practice. A court’s confirmation transforms the award into a judgment “having the same force and effect as any other judgment,” enabling collection by the usual means—garnishment, liens, or execution. Courts have a narrow role at this stage. They are not appellate bodies for arbitrators. Unless a statutory ground for vacatur or modification exists—such as evident partiality, misconduct, or excess of authority—the award must be confirmed. The judiciary’s restrained posture underscores a fundamental principle: finality is the crown jewel of arbitration.

The Respondent’s Resistance: Motions to Vacate or Modify

A losing party may seek to vacate or modify the award within three months of its issuance under Section 12 of the FAA. Courts, however, apply these provisions narrowly. The burden is steep, and the evidentiary threshold high. Common missteps include mere disagreement with the arbitrator’s reasoning or an attempt to re-argue the merits—grounds that never justify vacatur. For practitioners, this underscores the importance of procedural precision. Ensuring that the record reflects fairness, notice, and an opportunity to be heard can fortify an award against later attack. An enforceable award is not born in the courthouse—it is built during the arbitration itself.

The Mechanics of Confirmation: How to File and Proceed

A typical confirmation petition includes: Verified petition or motion citing the FAA (or state act); Copy of the arbitration agreement and the final award; Affidavit of service on the opposing party; Proposed judgment order for the court’s signature. Filing in the jurisdiction where the arbitration occurred—or where the losing party or its assets are located—strategically positions the prevailing side for efficient enforcement. Some courts allow summary procedures, while others may set a brief hearing. Unless a valid opposition is filed, confirmation is usually granted as a matter of course. When drafting, counsel should remember that courts favor succinct, fact-based petitions that demonstrate procedural regularity and compliance with deadlines. Over-argument can be counterproductive; credibility, not verbosity, wins the day.

From Judgment to Collection: Turning Paper into Payment

Once confirmed, the award takes on new life as a judicial judgment. Enforcement then proceeds under the state’s civil enforcement mechanisms—typically those applicable to any money judgment. Practical tools include: Writs of garnishment or attachment against bank accounts, wages, or accounts receivable; Judgment liens recorded against real property; Execution orders allowing seizure and sale of non-exempt assets; post-judgment discovery to identify hidden or transferred assets. Creative enforcement may also involve negotiating payment plans, obtaining consent judgments, or leveraging reputational incentives when the opposing party values confidentiality or ongoing business relationships. In short, collection requires both legal precision and strategic diplomacy. The tone of enforcement—firm yet professional—often determines how swiftly compliance follows.

State vs. Federal Considerations

In Michigan and most states, the Uniform Arbitration Act supplements federal provisions, allowing confirmation, modification, or vacatur through local courts. Counsel should always verify which statute governs the arbitration agreement and whether it contains any venue or procedural requirements. For example, while the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 9) requires a motion to confirm an arbitration award to be filed within one year, Michigan’s Uniform Arbitration Act (MCL 691.1702) imposes no such deadline. However, certain procedural distinctions such as methods of service, filing requirements, or the form of judgment entry can differ. 
Navigating this dual framework effectively ensures that an award is not lost in a procedural gap between federal and state law.

Beyond Confirmation: Interest, Costs, and Attorney Fees

A confirmed award may include post-judgment interest, calculated under the applicable state or federal rate, to compensate for delay in payment. When contracts or statutes provide for attorney fees or collection costs, the prevailing party should expressly request them in the petition. Courts often respect such contractual provisions, viewing them as part of the bargained-for expectation of the parties. For example, an arbitrator’s award granting $100,000 with a contractual interest clause at 12% continues to accrue interest until paid. A delay of even a few months can substantially increase the obligation—a quiet yet powerful incentive for compliance.

The Symbolism of Enforcement

Enforcement is not merely procedural; it is symbolic. It reaffirms the legitimacy of arbitration as a binding and respected process. Each confirmed award strengthens the ecosystem of alternative dispute resolution by signaling to the legal community that arbitration delivers not just decisions—but results. As one federal court aptly stated, “An arbitration award is not an invitation to negotiation; it is the end of the debate.” The power of enforcement ensures that endures. This twelfth and final installment mark the culmination of our exploration into the practice and procedure of domestic arbitration. From the first notice of arbitration to the final act of enforcement, we have traced the lifecycle of disputes resolved outside the courthouse yet within the rule of law. Enforcement is where theory meets consequence. It is where the neutral’s pen finds its echo in the judge’s gavel and it reminds us that arbitration’s promise—efficiency, finality, and fairness—means little without the certainty of compliance. To all who have followed this series: may your next award not only be well-reasoned, but well-respected—and, most importantly, well-enforced.

Harshitha Ram is an international disputes attorney, arbitrator, mediator, and lecturer in law. She is the President of the Global Arbitration Mediation Academy (GAMA), Chair of the ADR Section of the DBA, and the Co-Chair of the ABA Arbitration Committee. To learn more or connect, visit: www.harshitharam.com | www.adracademy.us

Do you want to have greater scheduling flexibility? Do you want to choose your own clients? Do you want to make money for yourself rather than someone else? 

Do you want to have greater scheduling flexibility? Do you want to choose your own clients? Do you want to make money for yourself rather than someone else? 

If you answered any of these questions in the affirmative, then perhaps you want to become a sole practitioner.

As someone who practiced for nearly 19 years on my own, I can attest to the benefits and detriments of being a sole practitioner. 

There are several things that should be considered, however, before taking the leap.

It is impossible to be a successful sole practitioner unless a lawyer is also a good administrator. In my time as a sole practitioner, I knew that I liked trying cases, loved researching the law, and loved writing briefs. However, what I strongly disliked was running my own accounting, ordering supplies, deciding which internet or phone plan was best for my business, and figuring out which computers, photocopiers, and fax machines were best for me to complete my work. As a sole practitioner, a lawyer needs to be an expert on all these things.

Furthermore, unless a lawyer is entering sole practice with a great deal of start up cash, that lawyer is also going to be their own secretary, bookkeeper, and law clerk. Lawyers can only bill for time spent on a client’s case, 
which means that as a sole practitioner, a lawyer is spending time working on many non-billable matters.

Then, a lawyer must consider where they are getting clients. If an attorney breaks from a firm, there is no clear guidance under the Michigan Professional Rules of Conduct as to whether the client belongs to the firm or the attorney who serviced the client. Therefore, it is imperative once a lawyer chooses to leave the firm and go solo, that both the lawyer and the law firm discuss the lawyer’s departure with each client that the lawyer services. Each client has the right to decide which lawyer the client wants to handle its affairs. Interfering with the client’s right to choose their own counsel violates MRPC 1.16. For more information regarding changing law firms, a lawyer should consult the State Bar’s article, “Changing Firms: Ethical Responsibilities for Lawyers and Law Firms.” 

Regardless of whether a lawyer is starting from scratch or continuing to service clients from their prior law firm, a sole practitioner will not survive without developing a steady stream of clients. Marketing is essential for a sole practitioner. In this day, one cannot survive without a web presence. So, who is going to build your website, do search engine optimization, or advertise for the sole practitioner? All these things can be costly.

However, there are marketing opportunities that can be done for minimal cost. One easy method is to network. Networking can be accomplished by joining associations, getting involved with the association committees, and going to association events.

Another free marketing opportunity is social media. A lawyer can utilize Facebook, TikTok, and even Reddit. However, if one markets in this way, a lawyer needs to make certain there is compliance with MRPC 7.1 – 7.5.

A law practice can also be built by accepting court appointments. This approach might be time-sensitive and have some minimal costs associated with it, as there may be educational requirements, and the classes required to get on the court-appointed lists may only be offered periodically. 

On the other hand, this strategy can open up a plethora of new clients (albeit at reduced fees), and other networking opportunities in fields such as criminal misdemeanors, felonies, juvenile law, guardianships and conservatorships, and mental illness cases. It also is a great way to get in front of judges and build a rapport with the court.

One drawback to being a sole practitioner is, what does a sole practitioner do when they have to be in two courts at once? Can you manipulate the cases with the courts that you can be at one court later than the other, or does the lawyer need to spend time trying to get one or the other courts to adjourn the case? What happens if neither court will move the case? Does the sole practitioner know someone whom they trust to handle the case when the sole practitioner cannot? How do you plan vacation time around potential court dates? Remember, if the sole practitioner is not working, there is no money coming into the practice. These are all common problems for a sole practitioner and must be considered before taking the leap into the sole practice world.

Most importantly, lawyers have an ethical duty to our clients that lasts not only beyond their deaths but the lawyer’s own death. All Michigan attorneys in private practice are required to name a person with knowledge of their practice and designate an interim administrator or enroll in the State Bar of Michigan Interim Administrator Program. The purpose of this rule is to allow for the smooth transition of a law practice and its clients when a lawyer resigns, is disbarred, suspended, disappears, is imprisoned, has become disabled or incapacitated, or died. I have encountered this situation twice in one year alone where opposing counsels have died and, in one case, had not named anyone to administer the practice. For the protection of the solo’s clients, transition planning is an essential step in creating a sole practice – knowing who you could trust with your clients when your practice ends.

Becoming a sole practitioner can be extremely rewarding. The ability to leave the office for personal activities is quite enticing. Personally, I made numerous events that I might not have been able to attend if I was working in a large firm. However, being the sole person responsible for every facet of the practice also meant that I worked numerous times past midnight and on weekends without compensation because non-legal things (or even legal things) had to get accomplished.

Therefore, before making the leap, it is important that one considers all the other aspects of sole practice before leaving the comfort of a firm.

Stuart Collis, of Collis, Griffor & Hendra, is an expert in collections and has over two decades of civil litigation, family law, and criminal law experience. Collis is a trained mediator and has extensive experience with case evaluation procedures. He has also served on a number of state and national organizations, including NARCA, WCBA, MCBA, and the Michigan Department of Agriculture’s Companion Animal Committee. Collis has been published extensively, including several republications. He has created and presented numerous educational sessions for interested organizations.

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

As new lawyers, we were taught in law school how to use technology to our advantage. However, this means there are also ways that the use of technology in the legal profession can go awry. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the most prominent example of a technology that has many helpful uses, and some pitfalls.

As new lawyers, we were taught in law school how to use technology to our advantage. However, this means there are also ways that the use of technology in the legal profession can go awry. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the most prominent example of a technology that has many helpful uses, and some pitfalls.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial intelligence refers to computer systems that can perform complex tasks usually done by humans, such as reasoning, decision-making, creating, drafting, etc. Because of AI, attorneys can produce better legal work in fewer hours, benefiting clients greatly. Some lawyers hesitate to incorporate AI into their practice, partly because AI raises ethical questions and risks, such as compromising confidential client data, or waiving attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.

Recently, lawyers and law firms have gotten sanctioned for failing to check case citations generated by AI. In June 2023, two New York attorneys filed a brief written by ChatGPT, which included citations to six non-existent cases and erroneous quotes. It is a cautionary tale that led to sanctions and public scrutiny.

In February of 2025, a federal court fined an attorney for “hallucinated” AI citations. When AI generates plausible but false text, this is a ‘hallucination.’ The court found that lawyers have an ethical duty to check the cites used in their legal filings and “read the case to ensure the excerpt is existing law to support their propositions and arguments.” Judge Kelly H. Rankin, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., D. Wyo., No. 2:23-cv-118-KHR

On July 29, 2024, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics & Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. In Formal Opinion 512, the ABA stated, 

“To ensure clients are protected, lawyers using generative artificial intelligence tools must fully consider their applicable ethical obligations, including their duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees.” 

I have compiled a list of key do’s and don’ts below to help guide you through best practices.

Do:

1. Start Using AI with Simple Tasks: To familiarize yourself with AI tools before applying them to more complex legal work, begin with low-stakes tasks such as document summarization or text editing.

2. Leverage AI for Efficiency: Use AI to legal research, contract review, and predictive analysis tasks.

3. Critically Review Answers: Always validate AI-generated content to align with legal standards and client interests. AI tools are not foolproof and require human oversight to avoid errors or omissions.

4. Maintain Ethical Standards: Adhere to ethical obligations such as client confidentiality, informed consent, and competence when using AI tools.

5. Invest in Training: Gain a basic understanding of how AI works and its limitations.

6. Experiment with Different Tools: Explore various AI platforms, such as Casetext’s CoCounsel, Westlaw Edge, or MyCase IQ, to find the tools best suited to your practice needs.

7. Treat AI as a Tool, not a Decision-Maker: Use AI to assist your thinking, never to replace it.

8. Stay Updated on AI Ethics and Bar Guidance: Regularly check with the State Bar of Michigan and the ABA for updates, opinions, and rules involving AI and legal practice.

Don’t:

1. Rely on AI for Legal Research Without Independent Verification: Always verify the facts and conclusions yourself. AI tools can assist, but the final responsibility lies with you.

2. Submit AI-Generated Content Without Review: As discussed above, copying and pasting from AI without proofreading or fact-checking can lead to ethical violations and sanctions.

3. Input Confidential Client Data: Treat AI like any third-party service provider. Avoid inputting sensitive client data to adhere to ethical standards such as client confidentiality and informed consent.

4. Misunderstanding AI’s Limitations: New lawyers might assume AI can handle complex legal reasoning or strategic decision-making. However, AI tools are best suited for repetitive tasks like document review or research, and cannot replace nuanced legal judgment or human expertise.

5. Assume AI is Always Neutral or Unbiased: AI tools can reflect biases in their training data.

6. Ignore It: Lawyers and firms that resist AI will fall behind.

7. Stop Learning: The best lawyers will be the ones who keep adapting and staying informed.

AI is a powerful tool for legal professionals, but it does not replace the need for legal expertise and judgment. While it can streamline processes and enhance efficiency, lawyers must remain vigilant about their ethical duties and responsibilities.

Natalie Lennon is a health law attorney with a background in regulatory compliance, healthcare transactions, and administrative law. 

With an LLM in health law from Loyola University Chicago School of Law, she advises providers and institutions in navigating federal and state healthcare regulations. Before focusing on health law, Lennon gained experience in general practice, which informs a well-rounded, strategic approach to client advocacy. 

She is admitted to practice in Minnesota and Michigan and is active in professional organizations focused on health law and policy. Lennon values collaboration across legal disciplines and is committed to delivering practical, business-oriented solutions. She can be reached at nlennon@chapman-lawgroup.com or at 248-644-6326.

Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Legal News newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur

As of October 1, 2025, Michigan employers with 10 or fewer employees (“small businesses”) must begin providing paid sick time under the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA). Larger employers (11+ employees) have been covered since February 21, 2025; the small employer effective date was intentionally delayed to give the smallest operations time to prepare.

As of October 1, 2025, Michigan employers with 10 or fewer employees (“small businesses”) must begin providing paid sick time under the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA). Larger employers (11+ employees) have been covered since February 21, 2025; the small employer effective date was intentionally delayed to give the smallest operations time to prepare.

Who counts toward “10 or fewer”?

Headcount is calculated broadly. Employers must include all employees across the United States and its territories—full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, including those supplied by staffing agencies. Employers who reach 11 or more employees for 20 or more workweeks in the current or prior calendar year are treated as a larger employer through the end of that year and the next.

How sick time accrues and can be used

Under ESTA, employees accrue one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. Small employers may limit both carryover and use to 40 hours per year (larger employers use a 72-hour cap). Unused paid sick time rolls over year to year, up to 40 hours for small employers.  

Alternatively, employers can frontload sick time at the start of each year to avoid tracking accrual and carryover. For small employers, that means providing at least 40 hours up front for full-time employees, with prorated amounts for part-time staff (subject to specific notice and “true-up” requirements).  

For small employers, accrual begins the later of October 1, 2025 or the employee’s start date. Employers using the accrual method may impose a waiting period of up to 120 days before new hires (on or after February 21, 2025) can use accrued time; during the waiting period, hours still accrue. Frontloaded time is available for immediate use and may not impose a waiting period.

What counts as “sick time” under the law

ESTA leave is broadly available for an employee’s own illness or preventative care, care for a family member, and certain needs related to domestic violence or sexual assault. Employers may track usage in one-hour increments (or the smallest timekeeping increment) and must compensate time off at the employee’s regular hourly rate (exclusive of overtime premiums, bonuses, commissions, tips, and holiday pay).

PTO policies can satisfy ESTA—if they meet or exceed the law

Employers already offering a paid time off (PTO) bank can use it to comply so long as it is at least as generous as ESTA (for small employers, at least 40 hours per year) and can be used for the same purposes on the same timelines. Many small employers will find this approach simplest, but review accrual, caps, and carryover to ensure alignment.

Required notices and posting

By 30 days after the February 21, 2025 amendments (or at hire, whichever is later), employers must provide written notice describing ESTA rights, the measurement “year,” usage rules, anti-retaliation protections, and the right to file a complaint. Employers must also display the state workplace poster in English, Spanish, and any other language that is the first language for 10% or more of the workforce if the state has provided a translation.

Action checklist for small employers (=10 employees)

1. Confirm headcount status. Count all U.S. employees—including temps and staffing-agency workers—and document weekly totals for the 20-week threshold analysis.  

2. Choose your method: accrual (1 per 30 hours, cap/use/rollover at 40) or frontload (40 hours for full-time; prorate part-time). Frontloading simplifies tracking but requires careful onboarding notices and potential true-
ups.  

3. Align your PTO policy. If you use a general PTO bank, ensure it provides at least 40 hours and can be used for ESTA-covered reasons without extra hurdles.  

4. Set a waiting-period rule (optional). If using accrual, decide whether to apply up to 120 days for new hires (who still accrue during that period).  

5. Update payroll and timekeeping. Configure accruals or frontloads, carryover limits, and usage caps, and pay at the correct regular rate.  

6. Issue required notices and post the state poster in the necessary languages. Train managers on anti-retaliation and consistent administration.  

7. Calendar policy start date: If using accrual for eligible employees, employers should have begun no later than October 1, 2025 (or date of hire, if later) and be prepared to accept covered uses immediately if frontloaded.
Michigan’s Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO) maintains plain-language guidance, including a February 27, 2025 slide deck that summarizes the 40-hour small-employer caps, the October 1, 2025 compliance date, frontloading options, notice requirements, and more. For complex scenarios like fluctuating headcount, multi-state operations, or collective bargaining agreements, employers should seek out legal counsel to tailor a policy and rollout.

—————

Zana Tomich is co-founder of Dalton & Tomich, a versatile Detroit-based law firm, where she works with lending institutions and privately held businesses and nonprofits, often in a general counsel capacity.

Founding a successful startup has never been easy, but a little-known U.S. Supreme Court ruling has made it even more difficult in recent years by enabling corporations that use startups' patented technology without permission to get off nearly scot-free.

Founding a successful startup has never been easy, but a little-known U.S. Supreme Court ruling has made it even more difficult in recent years by enabling corporations that use startups' patented technology without permission to get off nearly scot-free.

Now, Congress has a chance to set things right. On February 25, Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., reintroduced the Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive, or RESTORE, Patent Rights Act, a bipartisan bill that would enable startups and other patent holders to block infringers from unlawfully exploiting their patented technology.

For nearly all of our country's history, an injunction — a court order stopping infringers from continuing to use and sell technology without permission — was the standard remedy for patent infringement.

By enforcing exclusive rights as articulated in the U.S. Constitution and patent law, courts upheld the principle that inventors, not usurpers, should control how their technology is used and marketed. It incentivized investment in high-cost, high-risk, high-reward research, and provided startups and small businesses with a fighting chance against entrenched companies, including industry giants.

But the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC upended this long-standing principle. The ruling imposed a multifactor balancing test that made it significantly harder, if not impossible, for many inventors and patent holders to obtain an injunction and block unauthorized use, even after proving infringement.

Since the eBay decision, injunction grants in patent infringement cases dropped by more than 65 percent for operating companies and over 90 percent for startups, research institutions, or others that do not manufacture products that incorporate the patented technologies.

Patent owners have functionally lost control over the patented innovations they own. The eBay ruling effectively legalized forced patent licensing, stripping inventors of their exclusive rights while letting industry titans and other infringers profit from copied or stolen innovation.

This erosion of patent rights is undermining America's innovation economy. IP-intensive industries contribute over 40 percent of U.S. GDP and support tens of millions of jobs, according to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office data from 2019. 
But as patent protections weaken, investment in cutting-edge research slows. Venture capitalists become increasingly hesitant to fund startups and small companies when patents can no longer provide meaningful protection.

The RESTORE Patent Rights Act would fix the problem.

The bill would reestablish injunctions as the default remedy for proven patent infringement, just as they were prior to the eBay decision.

By passing the RESTORE Patent Rights Act, Congress would create real consequences for patent copying, deterring large corporate infringers that currently see litigation as just another cost of doing business. The bill would restore confidence in the U.S. patent system, giving startups and inventors the protection they need to take risks and drive technological progress. And it would keep America economically competitive in the race for next-generation technologies.

For nearly two decades, the eBay decision has distorted our innovation ecosystem, rewarding copying over creation and corporate might over individual ingenuity. The RESTORE Patent Rights Act offers an opportunity to correct the course we are on. Congress should not hesitate to take it.

——————————-

Paul Michel served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 1988 to his retirement in 2010, and as its chief judge from 2004-10. He currently serves on the board of the Council for Innovation Promotion.