Michigan Litigation
Trial Lawyers Association of Wayne County Juvenile Court, et al, v Kelly, (SC# 133616) complaint for superintending control filed April 10, 2007, in Michigan Supreme Court, seeking reinstatement of lawyers removed as appointed counsel for their juvenile clients under a new local administrative order. The new order, LAO 2006-08, awarded contracts to attorney groups, for future and pending matters. Plaintiffs allege violations of the children's due process right to counsel and effective representation.
- Order denying claim for superintending control, Michigan Supreme Court, July 18, 2007
- Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Answer and Exhibits, May 10, 2007
- Defendant's Response to Motion for Immediate Consideration, April 20, 2007
- Press release, April 12, 2007
- Complaint for Superintending Control, filed April 10, 2007
- Brief in Support of Complaint
- Defendant's Answer to Complaint, filed April 20, 2007
- Exhibits for Defendant's Answer to Complaint
Duncan v State of Michigan, (SC# 139345) Civil rights class action filed on February 22, 2007 in Ingham Circuit Court, alleges constitutional deficiencies in defense of indigents in Berrien, Genesee and Muskegon Counties. The suit was filed by the Michigan Coalition for Justice.
- Transcript of Motion to dismiss denied by Ingham Circuit Court. May 15, 2007
- Notice of Hearing, Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition and Defendant's Motion for Filing in Excess of Twenty Pages, April 5, 2007.
- Complaint, February 22, 2007
- Executive Summary
Dwayne B., et al v Granholm, et al, #2:06-cv-13548, a civil rights class action complaint, was filed on August 8, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit is on behalf of all children who are now or will be in the foster care custody of the Michigan Department of Human Services, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that the quality of legal representation provided by many lawyer guardians ad litem is impaired by oppressive caseloads.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, April 17, 2007
- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Appointment fo Class Counsel, January 12, 2007
- Defendant's Response and Brief in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, November 13, 2006
- Class Action Complaint - August 8, 2007
United States v Morris, Remand of federal gun case to state court due to ineffective assistance of state counsel in advising defendant of federal sentencing consequences; implicit challenge to impact of "Project Safe Neighborhoods" on fundamental rights. Filed September 7, 2004.
- Sixth Circuit Opinion of December 7, 2006, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
- Opinion of July 20, 2005, Hon. Arthur J Tarnow, remanding to state court for reinstatement of original plea offer.
- Transcript of Hearing in federal district court, November 23, 2004
- Defendant's Motion to Remand and Brief in Support, September 7, 2004
United States v Nixon, Claims of ineffective assistance of state defense counsel in failing to advise on federal sentencing consequences in gun case, like Morris above. Federal court orders on remedy, including access to documents on dual prosecution agreement between state and federal prosecutors.
- Order denying government request for reconsideration of April order, May 19, 2004
- Order directing government to produce documents for in camera inspection, April 23, 2004
Lloyd v City of Detroit, et al, Notice of Removal to Federal Court and Complaint, seeking damages for estate of man wrongfully convicted of murder and rape who was incarcerated for seventeen years before his DNA-based exoneration, alleging violations of civil rights, state and federal constitutional rights, and statutory rights under federal Rehabilitation Act. Settled.
- Lloyd v Detroit Consent Judgment, June 26, 2006
- Lloyd v Detroit, Order Granting Settlement, June 22, 2006
- Lloyd v Detroit, Amended Complaint, May 10, 2005
- Lloyd v Detroit, Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint, May 6, 2005
- Lloyd v Detroit, Motion for Disbursement and Settlement, April 27, 2006
- Notice of Removal and Complaint for Damages, March 11, 2004
Watts, et al v Antkoviak, et al, Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief by assigned attorneys against administrators and judges in Allegan County; attorneys holding contract for assigned juvenile cases allege that annual contract is awarded on a political basis.
- Watts v Antkoviak, Joint Final Pretrial Order, October 3, 2006
- Watts v Antkoviak, First Amended Complaint, August 7, 2003
- Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief, December 27, 2002
In re Wayne County Criminal Defense Attorneys Association and Criminal Defense Attorneys Association of Michigan, Complaint for Superintending Control against Chief Judges of Wayne Circuit Court, seeking enforcement of statutory right to "reasonable fees." Filed November 8, 2002; denied by Michigan Supreme Court on June 27, 2003.
- Michigan Supreme Court order denying relief, with majority of court not persuaded that the fee schedule fails to provide reasonable compensation, June 27, 2003
- Brief of Amicus Curiae, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, May 8, 2003
- Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Request for Writ of Superintending Control, May 6, 2003
- Michigan Supreme Court order granting motion to add Wayne County as party, March 31, 2003
- Affidavits of Matt Evans (President of Wayne County Criminal Defense Attorneys) and Robert Spangenberg (national expert on fees), November 11, 2002
- Memorandum in Support of Complaint for Superintending Control, November 8, 2002
- Complaint for Superintending Control, November 8, 2002
In re Recorder's Court Bar Association v Chief Judges, Complaint for Superintending Control against Chief Judges of Detroit Recorder's and Wayne Circuit Courts, seeking enforcement of statutory right to "reasonable fees." Filed April, 1989; granted by Michigan Supreme Court on August 3, 1993.
- Michigan Supreme Court decision, August 3, 1993
- Brief in Support of Complaint for Superintending Control, April 13, 1989
- Petitioner's Reply Brief, November 5, 1992
- Respondent's Wayne County Brief, October 5, 1992
- State Bar of Michigan's Amicus Curie Brief, October 1, 1992
- Respondent's Wayne County Circuit Amended Supplemental Brief, September 25, 1992
- Detroit Bar Association's Amicus Curie Brief, July 21, 1992
- Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System's Amicus Curie Brief, May 14, 1991
- Report of Special Master Hon. Tyrone Gillespie, April 3, 1991
- Complaint for Superintending Control, April 13, 1989
