Law Blog

Yesterday, I was sure that I was going to spend the entire day in a divorce trial; my first in a quarter century of practice. Didn’t happen.

Toward the end of last month, you may have noted the stir that a WSJ article caused over the issue of nagging and its toxic effect on marriages.

I would not trade living in an open Democratic society for anything. Ours is a government of laws where personal liberties are ingrained into the societal fabric as rights.

As our soldiers return from war in the Middle East, many cases of post traumatic stress disorder are becoming manifest. Often, the PTSD shatters an already fragile marriage, strained to the break point from years long separation.

Rather than just linking to the post, we took the pains to reproduce it here. Warning, the post and the art are somewhat dark, but then so is the criminal law.

Does a brief political “exchange” between a citizen and a sitting member of the executive branch of government constitute protected speech under the First Amendment? Is the calculus changed when the citizen, in urging his words upon the public official, actually reaches out and touches the official?

A well-respected blog on sentencing picked-up on the infamous NBA drunk driving cases coming out of the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Hills, MI.

Prenuptial agreements, contracts executed in the anticipation of a marriage, have long been validated in Michigan courts. Generally, there are two contingencies covered in a typical prenuptial agreement:

Many factors affect whether a second marriage will last: the relative age and incomes of the partners, whether either party has children, cohabitation prior to the second nuptials, and the education level of the parties. And, of course, how could we forget the personality of the ex-spouse; perhaps the most important factor of all.

Perhaps because my first job out of law school was with the Michigan Court of Appeals, I have always maintained a robust appellate docket to my law practice. For the past several years...