Columns

In our troubled world, focused upon situation that threaten humanity, we search for meaning and understanding of the human conflict. :  

By John F. Sase

(With assistance and inspiration from Gerad Senick, editor; Julie Sase, copy-editor; and William Gross, researcher)

"It is ideas that shape the course of history and, furthermore, that it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil."

-John Maynard Keynes, English economist

In our troubled world, focused upon situation that threaten humanity, we search for meaning and understanding of the human conflict. This discussion focuses upon the many groups in Easten Europe, the Middle-East, Africa, South America, and the Far East. Perhaps we can learn again from a power for good and understanding.

Introduction

This is the case of Detroit restaurateur and Nazi-sympathizer Max Stephan. In 1942, the German-born Stephan became one of the first U.S. citizens to be found guilty of treason since the Lincoln Assassination in 1865. This affaire and the decades of events that led up to it and followed it centered in Detroit, the city known as the World War II Arsenal of Democracy. We recount the case of Max Stephan in detail because of its historic value and relevance to modern times. Furthermore, Stephan's story is important to contemporary legal studies because of the yet-unanswered questions that surround the case.

Max Stephan was a Detroit restaurateur who aided in the escape of POW Luftwaffe Lieutenant Peter Krug in 1942. Krug had escaped from the Bowmanville Camp near Toronto and was attempting to get to the German Embassy in still-neutral Mexico. Stephan and others in Detroit gave him refuge for a couple of days as well as food and money to continue onward through Chicago. For his complicity, Stephan was arrested and tried for high treason as a U.S. citizen. However, a serious study of the case leaves one with the sense that the matter was indeed odd, curious, and had more holes in it than a block of Baby Swiss cheese.

As John Maynard Keynes states in our opening quote, ideas that are dangerous for good or evil shape the course of history. Therefore, in order to amass a greater perspective on the case of Max Stephan, we must explore the ideas as well as the events that both preceded and followed the Stephan affaire in Detroit. Let us start with the ideas and events that preceded the case of Max Stephan: He and many others believed in, were influenced by, and worked under an ideology that emerged in nineteenth-century Europe and continues to flourish to this day throughout the world. Most notably to the case, this ideology ferments to this day in Detroit, and does so through the National Socialist Movement (www.nsm88.org).

Birth of an Idea

The ideology that drove the Stephan case emerged from the Volkisch Movement, a nineteenth-century German cultural movement that had a romantic focus on folklore, which represented a Germanic interpretation of the populist movement. The early phase of the Volkisch Movement drew upon the teachings of Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, the German educator and nationalist who appeared as the Volkisch prophet of athleticism, German identity, and national unity. In order to spread his vision, Jahn founded a network of patriotic fraternities in the wake of the Napoleonic War that ended with the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June 1815.

By the 1870s, the Pan-Germanic vision had arisen with the formation of the Second Reich, during which Otto von Bismarck installed Wilhelm I as the Kaiser. Following this confederation of more than one hundred small principalities, the older land-based economy of the First Reich (the Holy Roman Empire) broke down.

Consequently, a mass migration from Germany to America began for those who opposed Bismark and the Second Reich during the Kulturkampf era. In 1866, the Germanenbund formed as a federation of cultural groups that held festivals and other Volkisch events. These cultural groups explored the history, literature, and mythology that would ferment into the beliefs of Arisophy, the wisdom and ideological systems of an esoteric nature that concern the Aryans. By 1901, more than 160 such groups existed throughout the country as the democratic German parties and the Pan-German Movement made strong electoral gains.

Guido von List

During the late-nineteenth century, the German/Austrian polymath and Volkisch occultist Guido von List stood out as one of the most important figures of this movement. His work formed the platform for Germanic and Runic revivalism and Ariosophic mysticism.

However, the ideas developed by von List and others in the nineteenth century were carried forward into the twentieth century by Lanz von Liebenfels. A former monk in the Cistercian order, von Liebenfels brought the ideas of Ariosophy to a new overt level. In 1907, von Liebenfels founded the Order of the New Templars and, with fellow supporters, the Guido von List Society in 1908. Von Liebenfels advocated sterilization of the sick and "lower races" in his anti-Semitic Volkisch magazine Ostara, a work studied by Adolf Hitler. The latter was said to have met with von Liebenfels at least as early as 1909 when he gave this Viennese student some missing issues of his magazine.

Next, let us turn our attention to Berlin in 1912. Phillip Stauff, an occultist and officer of the von List Society, joined with anti-Semitic publisher Theodor Fritsch and others to form the Germanenorden, a Volkisch secret organization that was directed toward the upper echelons of society. With Germanenorden, the world saw a new use of the ancient Tibetan/Buddhist symbol for prosperity and fire from Heaven-the swastika.

The Germanenorden survived the First World War, though it split into two factions. In 1916, the former Chancellor of the order, Herman Pohl, founded Germanenorden Walvater of the Holy Grail. He was joined by Rudolf von Sebottendorff, a wealthy occultist and admirer of von List and von Liebenfels. In his book "The Occult Roots of Nazism" (Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2009), English scholar Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke tells us that the Munich lodge of this organization chose the cover name of the Thule Society (taken from the ancient Nordic name for the mythical Aryan homeland) upon its dedication on 18 August 1918. Having enlisted the backing of various bankers and industrialists in Western Europe and beyond, the Thule Society was determined to contain any Communist expansion westward from Russia.

Another key element of the Stephan case is that of the German Workers Party (DAP), founded by Anton Drexler, a member of Thule, on 5 January 1919 in Munich. The DAP came to public attention during the time of the summer of street fights against the Communist Party that had won the election and had taken control of the government in Munich.

Given the notoriety afforded the DAP, the Thule Society began to question the autonomy and political direction of the ragtag militant organization. As a result, the Society enlisted the aid of former-Corporal Adolf Hitler to infiltrate the ranks of the DAP. After attending a meeting of the group at a Munich beer hall on 12 September 1919, Hitler reported back to Thule that the DAP posed no danger and could be instrumental to the goals of the Society. In addition, corroborating sources state that Drexler was so impressed with Hitler at that meeting that he was asked to join the party. Evidence suggests that it was at this juncture that the Thule Society began to sponsor the DAP heavily as an anti-Communist front. Through the involvement of Hitler, who was funded by the Thule Society, the DAP began to transform into the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP, aka the Nazi Party).

Barring a couple of setbacks in the early 1920s, the political strength of the NSDAP grew as the party rose to power between 1925 and 1933. The election of 1932 had established the party as the largest parliamentary faction of the Weimar Republic. On 30 January 1933, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of the Weimar Republic by ailing President Paul von Hindenburg. Following the still-suspicious Reichstag fire, which a number of historians assert was started by the NSDAP as an excuse to expel the members of the Communist Party from the Reichstag, the Enabling Act was passed on 23 March 1933. This legislation conferred dictatorial powers on Hitler. The Third Reich was open for business.

During the rise and takeover of the German government by the NSDAP, the group known as Abwehr was active in Germany and around the world. The sole German military-intelligence organization, Abwehr (which comes from a word that means "defense") functioned as an information-gathering agency from 1921 through 1944. Per the terms of the Treaty of Versailles following the armistice of the First World War, the Allied powers left Germany devoid of any armed defenses.

The organization of Abwehr developed as a concession to Allied demands that post-war intelligence activities by Germany be used for defensive purposes only. The Abwehr intelligence- gathering agency dealt exclusively with human intelligence, drawing upon reports from field agents and other sources. The head of Abwehr reported directly to the High Command of the German Armed Forces. From there, intelligence summaries were disseminated to intelligence-evaluation sections of the disarmed German Army, Navy, and Air Force.

This worldwide "defensive" intelligence network developed through the 1920s, a decade of peace and prosperity for many, though not for Germany. When the NSDAP assumed totalitarian control of the country in 1933, the intelligence network was already well-established. Rearmament became the topmost priority of the German government under the NSDAP regime, which formally renamed Abwehr as the Foreign Affairs/Defense.

To be Continued.
______
Dr. John F. Sase teaches Economics at Wayne State University and has practiced Forensic and Investigative Economics for twenty years. He earned a combined M.A. in Economics and an MBA at the University of Detroit, followed by a Ph.D. in Economics from Wayne State University. He is a graduate of the University of Detroit Jesuit High School (www.saseassociates.com).

Gerard J. Senick is a freelance writer, editor, and musician.

Julie G. Sase is a copyeditor, parent coach, and empath.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is proud to release the 2nd edition of its "Immigration Law Practice and Procedure Manual: A 'Cookbook' of Essential Practice Materials." :  

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is proud to release the 2nd edition of its “Immigration Law Practice and Procedure Manual: A ‘Cookbook’ of Essential Practice Materials.” Written by Ari Sauer and Greg Siskind, the “Cookbook” provides the reader with thorough, how-to guidance on preparing and filing many of the more common immigration applications and petitions. Immigration law is famously complex so this resource is incredibly helpful; each chapter contains all the resources most attorneys will need to prepare a specific type of immigration case. It can serve as a valuable tool for newer immigration lawyers, as well as a handy practice aid for more seasoned practitioners.

The new two-volume edition updates and builds on the first edition which covers B Visas, E Visas, H-1B Visas, L Visas, O Visas, R Visas, Family-Based Immigration, K Visas, PERM Process, Alternatives to PERM, EB-1C, Consular Processing, Post-LPR Issues, Naturalization, DACA, and TPS.

The new, second edition also includes three new chapters covering TN Visas, U Nonimmigrant Status, and VAWA Self-Petitions, as well as 40+ new guides, checklists, and samples
Each chapter includes:

• Overview of the subject matter
• Workflows that cover the entire petition process
• Eligibility Assessment Screening Checklists
• Sample Intake Forms
• Sample Document Checklists
• Packet Preparation Checklists
• Sample Cover Letters
• Sample Documents
• Tips for Filling Out Relevant Forms, with Form Samples

The two volume “Immigration Law Practice and Procedure Manual: A ‘Cookbook’ of Essential Practice Materials” costs $569 and can be ordered at https://agora.aila.org/store/products.

Recently, I was preparing for a personal injury jury trial for a client who suffered serious injuries when he fell through a step while descending a staircase in an apartment complex. :  

By A. Vince Colella

Recently, I was preparing for a personal injury jury trial for a client who suffered serious injuries when he fell through a step while descending a staircase in an apartment complex. In anticipation of trial, defense counsel filed its motions in limine, including a motion seeking to preclude the use of "Reptile" strategies and techniques. The defense likened these strategies to the "Golden Rule," i.e., asking jurors to place themselves in the position of the plaintiff, uniformly precluded by courts as prejudicial and inadmissible. However, I had never read or studied the Reptilian method of trial advocacy. Thus, I was a bit perplexed by the notion that I should be enjoined from using a trial strategy that I knew nothing about.

In preparing a response, I learned through research that the Reptile Theory focuses on safety and security issues to subtly encourage jurors to envision themselves in the same situation as a plaintiff.

The method is based upon a neuroscientific theory developed in the 1960s called the "Triune Brain." This theory explains how the brain responds to threats, challenges, and change. In trial practice, the theory is believed to show that engaging the most primal part of a juror's mind provokes the feeling that if a defendant's actions are allowed to continue, then the community (and even the jury itself) may be in danger.

Before the Reptile Theory, blatant attempts to violate the Golden Rule when addressing a jury would almost inevitably lead to a mistrial. However, the Reptile Theory was touted by its creators, ex-theater director, David Ball and plaintiff attorney, Don Kennan, to enable attorneys to sidestep the Golden Rule, while making a similar impression on jurors.

Recently, defense attorneys have been filing motions in limine to preclude the use of Reptilian techniques. However, these motions are usually denied because defense attorneys have a difficult time articulating what it is that they wish to exclude. Michigan courts have been relatively reticent in granting motions to exclude Reptile tactics because defense attorneys are unable to specifically explain how these tactics may inflame or improperly influence the jury. Prophylactically precluding Reptilian methods has been generally viewed as premature and speculative in nature. Opting instead to reserve the right to make the appropriate evidentiary rulings during trial. Prudently, Michigan courts seem to follow a trend of waiting to see if the plaintiff's counsel runs afoul of the Golden Rule in an effort to appeal to juror's subjective judgments about their own best interests and the best interests of the community at large. Most courts seem to be satisfied with the idea that jurors are presumed to follow their instructions, which are designed to cure most errors that occur at trial.

Interestingly, like any "proven" trial strategy, the Reptile Theory is certainly not a one-size fits all. Researchers have found that the strategy is predicated on the idea that humans are innately selfish. Subconsciously asking, "how does this affect me?" However, researchers have pointed out that humans have evolved from prehistoric mindsets and are more reliant on the parts of our brain that govern logic and reasoning (a distinction that separates us from all other species.)

One of the strategies for countering the Reptile approach is to invoke the "rational" area of the juror's brain to counterbalance a juror's emotions. Reptilian tacticians strive to simplify a case in order to magnify or draw attention to the defendant's "bad behavior." However, critics of the method recognize that most cases are more complex than the plaintiff would have jurors believe. Rather than hide from complexities, defense attorneys are encouraged to rationally explain the case to jurors in the form of a story. Of course, it is not suggested that the defense chase every fact down the proverbial "rabbit hole," but rather illustrate the areas in which the plaintiff embellished, downplayed or ran rough shot over the "facts" of the case. This is believed to re-focus the jury on the objective evidence and take the emphasis off the defendant's actions and conduct.

Finally, the irony of the attacks on Reptile strategy are not lost on this writer. Sure, plaintiff attorneys strive to shift the focus of the case onto the choices, behavior and attitudes of the defendants - which may ignite an innate sense of self-protection in jurors. However, all too often, plaintiff attorneys face the challenges of outside influences that are either subtly introduced by the defense or embedded in the self-consciousness of the jurors. For example, the mention of insurance. While it is not permitted (and likely will result in a mistrial if introduced intentionally), the ability of an individual to pay a verdict of judgment remains a question in the minds of the jury. In other cases, jurors are subtly reminded of the effect a verdict will have on them personally, i.e., a verdict against a city or county for which they live may result in a rise in taxes. Allowing or fostering these misconceptions has always permeated jury trials and will continue to leave plaintiffs at a disadvantage-regardless of snakes, alligators, or crocodile neuroscience.
––––––––
A. Vince Colella is a co-founder of personal injury and civil rights law firm Moss & Colella.

The litigation practice group at the Foster Swift law firm welcomes attorney Danielle N. Romano. :  

The litigation practice group at the Foster Swift law firm welcomes attorney Danielle N. Romano.

Romano joins the firm’s Southfield office and focuses her practice on a variety of civil litigation areas, including:

• Insurance defense litigation
• General liability matters
• First-party No-Fault
• Third-party auto negligence
• Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP) Servicing Insurer Defense

Romano earned her B.A. in Political Theory and Constitutional Democracy from Michigan State University in 2018 and graduated with her law degree from Wayne State University Law School in 2022.

•            •            •

Foley, Baron, Metzger, & Juip PLLC (FBMJ) is pleased to announce that M. Hussein Houjaij has joined the firm as a new associate attorney. Richard Baron, member, made the announcement.

Houjaij’s practice will focus on environmental, toxic tort, mass tort and products liability litigation, as well as permitting and compliance with environmental regulations, and defending against alleged violations of environmental regulations.

Before joining FBMJ, Houjaij gained experience at two Michigan law firms where he specialized in legal services to small and medium-sized businesses, advising clients through all phases of commercial litigation, arbitration, and contract negotiations. As an assistant prosecutor in the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, he represented Michigan’s largest county in juvenile delinquency cases as first chair counsel for all trials.

Houjaij earned his law degree from Wayne State University Law School in 2019 and his Bachelor of Arts in Communications in 2016.

•            •            •

DBusiness magazine named Brian McKeen, founder and managing partner of McKeen & Associates PC, to its Top Lawyers 2023 list in the categories of Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury. Further, McKeen & Associates was named a Best Law Firm for 2023 through Best Lawyers.

Based in Detroit, McKeen & Associates PC represents individuals injured by the negligence of others particularly in or by hospitals and physicians.

•            •            •

Bodman PLC is pleased to announce that Julie E. Nichols has joined the firm as pro bono counsel, based in Troy.

In conjunction with the Pro Bono Committee, Nichols will coordinate all aspects of the firm’s pro bono program and manage the firm’s relationships with numerous legal clinics and referring organizations. She has experience representing pro bono clients and coordinating the activities of volunteer pro bono counsel.

Before joining Bodman, Nichols worked for seven years as a supervising attorney and pro bono manager with Legal Services of Eastern Michigan where she handled all manner of civil cases, assisted clients, prepared pleadings and court documents, supervised outside attorneys, and coordinated civil cases with the private bar. She also spent many years in private practice, most recently as a partner in the Insurance Coverage Group of a Michigan-based business law firm.

Nichols is a graduate of Wayne State University Law School. She also earned a Master’s degree from Wayne State University and received her undergraduate degree from The University of Michigan.

Nichols served as a law clerk to U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Cornelia G. Kennedy and to Michigan Supreme Court Justice Patricia Boyle.

•            •            •

Plunkett Cooney’s director of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI), Laurel F. McGiffert, was recently named by Crain’s Detroit Business as one of their 2023 Notable Leaders in DEI.
Crain’s Detroit Business selected McGiffert and the other honorees for spearheading their organization’s DEI efforts, including coordinating discussions, implementing creative and effective training and focusing on equity and justice in the community.

McGiffert was appointed the firm’s first director of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion in 2018 by Plunkett Cooney President & CEO Thomas P. Vincent. She is responsible for helping create a more diverse and inclusive workforce at the firm. The firm’s efforts include, but are not limited to, recruiting and hiring of more diverse candidates, and implementing strategies to retain our talented professionals and support staff.

McGiffert, who graduated from Vassar College in 1970 and Wayne State University Law School in 1980, joined the firm in 1989 and became a partner in 1991. Prior to undertaking her current role, her nearly 40-year legal career included the defense of clients in civil litigation involving employment law, medical malpractice, municipal liability and general liability.

A member of the firm’s Medical Litigation, Employment Law, and Governmental Law practice groups, McGiffert remains active in various bar and professional organizations, including the State Bar of Michigan, the American Board of Trial Advocates and the Wolverine, Detroit and Oakland County bar associations. She also serves as a member of the board of directors for the Power Company Kids Club. Having recently served nine years on the board of directors of the Oakland Mediation Center (OMC), McGiffert was recently elected to OMC’s Advisory Board.

McGiffert is the recipient of numerous accolades, including the 2017 Earl J. Cline/Sherwin Schreier Award for Excellence from the Negligence Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan and the 2012 Respected Advocate Award from the Michigan Association for Justice. McGiffert is an AV-preeminent rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell, and she has been named for multiple years as a Best Lawyer in America, a Michigan Super Lawyer and a Dbusiness magazine Top Lawyer. Crain’s Detroit Business named McGiffert to its 2017 list of Notable Women in the Law in Michigan, and she received “Hall of Fame” and “Women in the Law” honors from Michigan Lawyers Weekly in 2021 and 2015, respectively. She was also named one of the “2022 Most Influential Black Lawyers” by Savoy magazine.

In addition, Plunkett Cooney insurance coverage attorney Elaine M. Pohl is serving as program chair of the annual “Insurance Coverage and Practice Symposium” (ICPS) – the flagship conference sponsored by the Insurance Law Committee of DRI, Lawyers Representing Business.™

The ICPS, which takes place on Nov. 29 – Dec. 1 at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel, will feature faculty members from across the country who will address the biggest insurance coverage challenges and opportunities facing the insurance industry. Pohl will be joined by Plunkett Cooney’s Insurance Coverage Practice Group Co-leader Charles W. Browning who will present a Dec. 1 session titled “PFAS Claims: Are These ‘Forever Chemicals’ The New Asbestos?”

“I am honored to serve as the ICPS program chair,” said Pohl, who is a partner in the Bloomfield Hills office of Plunkett Cooney.  “I have worked with the Insurance Law committee leadership for years to put on this popular and prestigious national conference, and to now serve as chair is humbling and exciting.”

In her role as chair, Pohl is responsible for coordinating the symposium, including selecting and confirming topics and speakers, managing networking opportunities, overseeing marketing and serving as host for the event.

Pohl maintains a national practice counseling insurers in complex property and casualty disputes, including litigated and non-litigated matters. Her insurance coverage experience extends to claims involving professional liability, construction defects, bodily injuries, product liability, environmental contamination, personal and advertising injury issues, first-party property disputes and allegations of bad faith.

A graduate from the Indiana University School of Law in 1999, Pohl received her undergraduate degree from Villanova University in 1996. She is admitted to practice law in state and federal courts in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. In addition to DRI, Pohl is a member of the State Bar of Michigan (past chair of the Insurance and Indemnity Law Section).

•            •            •

The Dobrusin Law Firm is pleased to announce that Founding Shareholder Eric Dobrusin has been elected chair-elect of the Board of Trustees of Common Ground, an organization
dedicated to providing crucial crisis support services. He is slated to assume the role of chair in 2025.

Dobrusin has been involved with Common Ground for many years, recognizing the invaluable services and resources it provides to the community.

•            •            •

McDonald Hopkins has continued its commitment to safeguarding clients’ digital assets and sensitive information by attracting new talent to its Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group with the hiring of Aysha F. Allos as a new associate.

Allos focuses her practice on advising companies in a wide variety of industries on best practices for preventing and responding to data privacy and cybersecurity incidents. This includes guidance on incident response, data breach notification, regulatory investigations, and data privacy and cybersecurity litigation, including class action litigation.

Allos also has experience providing privacy and cybersecurity-related diligence for mergers and acquisitions and advice related to the buying, selling and licensing of data. Allos regularly collaborates with cross-functional teams, including IT, risk management, and compliance departments, to ensure alignment and effective implementation of proactive privacy and cybersecurity measures. She has specific expertise in the area where data protection meets intellectual property, with a focus on the complex and evolving laws and regulations that govern data transmitted and stored in computers.

Allos is based out of McDonald Hopkins’ Detroit office.

•            •            •

Varnum received 62 metropolitan rankings spanning practice areas and markets in the latest edition of Best Law Firms® published by Best Lawyers®.  

Varnum’s local rankings for 2024 include:

TROY
Tier 1: Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Tier 1: Tax Law
Tier 1: Trusts and Estates Law
Tier 1: Litigation – Tax
Tier 2: Litigation – Trusts & Estates

•            •            •

Michigan Lawyers Weekly has recognized Jones Day partner Emily Tait by including her in its 2023 class of “Leaders in the Law.”

Tait, who is based in the firm’s Detroit office and a member of the Intellectual Property Practice, develops IP protection, enforcement, and risk management strategies related to trade secrets, data, copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Her practice is also focused on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly IP issues arising from the use of GenAI tools.  Tait’s matters span diverse industries and technologies, including autonomous and automated systems, simulation software, electric vehicles, life sciences and health care tech, mobility, fintech, and consumer products.

Tait is active in Michigan’s legal community and co-founded and previously served as president of the Michigan Intellectual Property Inn of Court. She provides pro bono services to Michigan-based veterans, the firm’s Anti-Human Trafficking Initiative and Laredo Project, and cultural institutions and creativity-based nonprofits requiring IP assistance. She mentors and supports junior lawyers and in particular women and underrepresented minorities in the legal profession. As the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) chair for the Detroit office, Tait is active on the firm’s global diversity committee and works to bring attention to related initiatives in Detroit.

Tait has been named among the “WTR 1,000” (World Trademark Review) and “Notable Women Lawyers” by Crain’s Detroit Business.

In addition, Crain’s Detroit Business has named Ann Hollenbeck, partner-in-charge of the Detroit office, among the publication’s “Notable Leaders in DEI” for 2023.

As partner-in-charge, Hollenbeck has championed DEI by leading the Detroit office with an intentional approach to recruiting, training, mentorship and advancement, summer program activities, and pro bono services. She recently moderated a live fireside chat with groundbreaking Michigan leaders on shattering barriers in their professions, managing change, and developing resiliency in the face of significant challenges.

Hollenbeck is a partner in the Health Care & Life Science Practice and focuses on advising clients in the sector on digital health, artificial intelligence, human subjects research, organ transplant, pharmacy/340B, and fraud and abuse matters. She also represents health care, life sciences, and technology companies in transactional matters such as joint ventures and co-management arrangements. She regularly advises these entities with regard to the negotiation of clinical trial-related agreements, including virtual clinical trials, in addition to related regulatory matters, such as Medicare reimbursement and institutional review board responsibilities.

In the community, Hollenbeck serves on the Board of Directors and the Audit and Finance Committee of Gift of Life Michigan, which coordinates organ procurement and transplant for Michigan residents. She also serves on the Board of Directors of Ele’s Place, which provides peer support grief programs to children. Both are nonprofit organizations that serve the general public, including those who lack resources to otherwise access services.

In addition to this distinction, Hollenbeck was recently named a Michigan Lawyers Weekly: Leaders in the Law honoree.

•            •            •

Taft Detroit attorney Kimberly Ross Clayson was named a Michigan Lawyers Weekly Leaders in the Law 2023.

Clayson is an attorney in Taft’s Bankruptcy and Restructuring practice group.  She serves a diverse client portfolio in the areas of insolvency law, creditors’ rights, business law and health law. She provides counsel to operating businesses as well as to creditors of financially distressed businesses and individuals.

Clayson has experience restructuring business debtors and representing Chapter 7 trustees in fraud investigations and bankruptcy litigation.  She was appointed and presently serves as one of only five Subchapter V Trustees in the Eastern District of Michigan under the Small business Reorganization Act of 2019.

In addition, 17 attorneys in Taft’s Detroit office were named to DBusiness magazine 2024 Top Lawyers. Following are the Taft honorees:

Jeremy Bisdorf (Intellectual Property and Patent Law)
Jordan Bolton (Litigation – Commercial)
Kenneth Clarkson (Real Estate Law)
Mark Cooper (Insurance Law)
Paul Hage (Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor Rights Law)
Ethan Holtz (Litigation – Commercial)
Shirley Kaigler (Trusts and Estates)
Lee Kellert (Mergers and Acquisitions Law)
Mark Kowalsky (Securities Law)
Eli Maroko (Immigration Law)
Christopher Moceri (Mergers & Acquisitions Law)
Mark Rubenfire (Real Estate Law)
Aaron Sherbin (Trust and Estates)
William Sider (Tax Law)
Arthur Siegal (Environmental Law)
David Steinberg (Franchise Law)
Arthur Weiss (Tax Law)

•            •            •

Meghan Kennedy Riordan was recently honored with the designation of Leader in the Law by Michigan Lawyer’s Weekly.

Riordan heads Kitch’s Immigration Law Practice Group. She has more than 32 years of experience in all aspects of immigration law.  She has experience in both employment-based and family related immigration law, issues of inadmissibility and removability, and naturalization/citizenship, as well as inbound/outbound corporate migration, immigration-related audits and I-9 compliance training. She is also licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Foreign Legal Consultant to provide services in Ontario.

Riordan has provided pro bono services to many Michigan organizations some of which include the Pope Francis Center and OLGC PBJ Ministry. She has also provided her services to many Irish organizations including the Irish Network Detroit, where she is currently serving as president of the organization.

The achievements of several other Kitch attorneys were also recently recognized at the 19th Annual Dennis W. Archer Public Service Award Gala. Marcy Tayler was inducted into the Detroit Bar Association’s Class of 2023 Fellows.

Additionally, Kaitlyn Elias, Joslyn Iafrate, Carina Kraatz, and John Sier were recognized with Pro Bono Awards. Pro Bono awardees are members who contributed 30 hours of pro bono work this year by volunteering for the Detroit Legal Services Clinic or one of the many pro bono opportunities presented by the Detroit Bar Association.

•            •            •

Collins Einhorn Farrell PC is pleased to announce that ten of our colleagues have been named to the 2024 “Top Lawyers” list by DBusiness magazine:

David C. Anderson, Legal Malpractice Law
Joshua I. Arnkoff, Professional Malpractice Law
Theresa M. Asoklis, Legal Malpractice Law
Donald D. Campbell, Legal Malpractice Law
Michael J. Cook, Appellate Law
Clayton F. Farrell, Product Liability
James J. Hunter, Litigation – Commercial
Deborah A. Lujan, Professional Malpractice
Michael J. Sullivan, Legal Malpractice Law, Product Liability
Nicole E. Wilinski, Insurance Law

As demands for a cease fire or a pause in the Hamas-Israeli war keeps growing, I am giving the calls much thought. :  

By Berl Falbaum

As demands for a cease fire or a pause in the Hamas-Israeli war keeps growing, I am giving the calls much thought.

After all, they were coming from about every media institution, from protests around the world and from prominent politicians.

The voices are very clear: It was time for Israel to let up in its military operations and call a “time out,” so to speak.

As I reflected on the actions desired from Israel, an idea kept growing in my head on how this war could be ended and very quickly.

Admittedly, it was a crazy notion which I tried to suppress but it just kept dominating my thinking. I knew it was weird, strange, off the beaten path. I was ashamed of myself for even entertaining such a thought.

This is the first time, in this column, I am going to mention my solution to anyone. I am not confident that my editors will even print this, but I need to get it off my chest.

What if ... what if ... what if ... here goes ... Hamas laid down its arms and freed some 240 hostages it was holding. Suddenly, the war would be over.

The organization would acknowledge that thousands of civilians, including children, are dying needlessly and it was time to end the carnage. It would stop firing missiles into Israel which, at this writing, totals about 9,500 since October 7.

There I said it. What a relief. I am not sure how readers will react. They may send very angry letters to my editors, criticizing my “radical” proposal, that is, if editors publish this column.

With the world pressuring Israel, I know I must be misguided. Sure, Israel suffered the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, that 1,400 Jews were slaughtered, some were beheaded, some burned alive and some, including babies riddled with bullets. But it’s time for Israel to quit playing the victim card.

Thus, it only makes sense that Israel agrees to a cease fire or pause and give those who committed the crime an opportunity to recover from Israel’s response so they might attack the Jewish state again.

Israel might even open safe routes that Hamas can use to rearm itself and make the war more proportional. It just seems so unfair for Israel to have a military advantage. I now finally understand that the U.S. should not have used the A-bombs until the Germans had developed theirs.

I’m not sure why I cannot grasp this logic and accept the political thinking and demands from the world. If it is so clear to Israel critics, I must be missing something.

Worse, I have another proposal, just as absurd, one which would complement Hamas’ giving up its arms and freeing the hostages.

Since I have gone out this far on a limb and since it’s a little late to turn back, I might as well reveal that proposal as well.

Hamas would change its charter which now calls for the destruction of Israel. Instead, it would recognize Israel, commit itself to living in peace next to Israel side-by-side and join efforts to create a two-state solution.

Under this plan, Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas’ decision-making political bureau, would retract his statements that his organization would replicate the October 7 attack, repeating it “again and again and again.”

He would disavow the following remark he made in an interview: “The al-Aqsa Flood [the code name for the massacre] is just the first time and there will be a second, a third, a fourth because we have the determination, the resolve, and the capabilities to fight.”

He would express regret for his statements and promise that the slogan “from the river to the sea” which, translated, means Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel, is history.

Those are the two ideas that have consumed my thinking as I hear the endless calls for a cease fire or pause. At the same time, I am puzzled why the world has not made the same demands on Russia after 21 months of an unprovoked war against Ukraine where tens of thousands have been killed, in the wars in Yemen (where 377,000 have died) and Syria (where President Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people, killing children), or in several other conflicts raging around the world.

Setting aside my sarcasm, I will conclude with two questions the critics never answer:

—How can Israel avoid causing civilian casualties when the enemy embeds himself in tunnels under schools, hospitals, homes, and other public venues?

—Why would or should Israel pause in fighting an enemy who proudly remains committed to destroying it by all military methods, including the most barbaric means imaginable?
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.

Because facilitative mediation has been demonstrably successful in resolving disputes, many courts presiding over civil claims are referring cases to mediators, even as early as at the first scheduling conference, after the pleadings are filed but before discovery :  

By William D. Gilbride Jr.

Because facilitative mediation has been demonstrably successful in resolving disputes, many courts presiding over civil claims are referring cases to mediators, even as early as at the first scheduling conference, after the pleadings are filed but before discovery. This phenomenon is different from the historical model where, after the completion of discovery, while motions to dismiss were pending or the case was "ready for trial," the courts would order the parties to a settlement conference or refer them to a mediator to assist the now "fully informed" parties in settling their differences. As we are in the midst of these changes, this article will address some of my own experiences representing clients in mediating civil cases early on in the life of the litigated case. I include some of my own do's and don'ts, developed over years of experience.

Joint Sessions. Always agree to a joint session at the outset of the mediation and/or during the process; the earlier in the process, the better. Curiously, many counsel and parties resist this advice because it will be "uncomfortable" for the parties to be together in one room. No doubt, it can be uncomfortable; but being together with counsel during a joint session is no more uncomfortable than it will be in a party deposition or when they (someday) get to court. So, they may as well appreciate the reality of being a party in a litigated case. Unlike social media, court proceedings likely involve actual face-to-face confrontations, so the joint session, and all the anxiety that goes with it are just a part of the process. I've also observed that in most cases requiring a joint session puts the parties on their best behavior. Prior to the litigation, the parties were more than likely in some form of relationship, be it familial, contractual, as partners, principal and agent, buyer and seller or landlord and tenant, to name a few. Sometimes that historical context, revisited during a joint session, eases the tensions involved and puts context on the narrower issues in dispute. Also, mediators receive training on how to handle difficult clients and tense situations, so a credentialed mediator should be able to diffuse and manage problems if they arise.

Let Your Client Speak. For counsel, there is much to be learned in a joint session, especially if rule number two is followed: make your clients do the talking. All too often, mediations fall flat because the lawyers do all the talking, and the clients sit tight with lips sealed by their attorney's order. The benefits of having the parties speak for themselves are legion. We all understand that people learn from hearing themselves speak, so what better forum for that than in a private, confidential mediation conference? The sound of their own story will resonate in both its strengths and in its weaknesses; the same is of course true for the opposite side of the dispute: hearing from their opponent and having to articulate their own position is often beneficial. Like juries, most people are fairly good judges of the truth, and can assess for themselves whether their story will be believed, especially when confronted with the opposite view. And, as lawyers know, if the case gets to trial, they will need to testify, so why not get a confidential preview of that in an early facilitation.

Some Other Perspectives. Naysayers will complain this process may reveal strategies and case theories; but this concern is shortsighted because the facts of the case will come out in discovery, anyway, so why not get them on the table early on before incurring the costs associated with formal discovery. Speaking of discovery, all counsel will get a lot of discovery just by participating in the mediation, listening to the parties and outlining the information which should be pursued to prepare the case for trial if the mediation does not yield a resolution. And since less than one percent of all complaints result in a judgment or verdict entered as a result of a trial, this may be your client's only experience akin to their "day in court." The joint session at least forces the other side to hear them.

Once the joint session is concluded, it is time for the more typical facilitative efforts, and those are more commonly understood and anticipated; we are all familiar with shuttling offers back and forth, adding and removing requirements and similar negotiation tactics, all of which are remnants of a settlement conference, so I will not belabor those considerations in this article. But on this subject, here is another piece of practical advice.

Final Offers. Frequently, one side will proclaim that their next offer is their "best and final." Suddenly, counsel and the parties in one room begin packing their bags and prepare to leave. As lawyers and advocates, we understand the import of that strategy and we frequently see it in negotiations. It may be an appropriate move in many cases, but often it comes too soon and is ill-advised without first discussing it with the mediator for several reasons. First, if you are perceived by your opponent as serious, you may have just missed an opportunity to discover their bottom line. (They are packing their bags instead of making you another offer.) Second, most negotiators will not believe you. Would you and your client actually decline an offer just $10 above or below your announced "best and final" offer? Worst of all is making the announcement without first consulting your mediator.

Strategy Conference with Your Mediator. If you decide to proceed with a last best offer, reserve a moment or two with the mediator before actually leaving. There are occasions where the threat actually works, and you do not want to miss the opportunity to walk out with a signed agreement or MOU that day because you left before the mediator communicated their acceptance. Worst case scenario, your opponents are offended, they dig in their heals even harder, and any progress made towards a resolution is lost. I recommend that you allow the mediator one last chance to counsel with the parties before you actually leave.

A seasoned mediator can help you explore your strategy by asking you questions, such as: "Are you actually at your monetary limit or have you and your client just reached your endurance limit for incremental moves by your opponents?" If there is still room left, the mediator may suggest a variety of moves for you to consider, from calling for an attorneys-only caucus to explore alternative moves to keep the negotiations alive, or they may suggest something as simple as honestly telling the other side you would like to resolve this matter today, but you and your client are frustrated by the pace of the negotiations and your client wants to stop negotiating. Then, make the impasse the problem by asking your opponent, "What can your side do to speed up the process so we don't lose momentum?" You may get nothing or you may get a move which surprises you and leads to further discussion. But whatever you do, give the mediator a few more minutes before you depart from the conference room or the Zoom breakout room.

Sometimes, good things happen to those who wait.
––––––
William D. Gilbride Jr. is a business attorney and seasoned litigator who has tried many cases in state and federal courts over business, contract, real estate and other matters. Gilbride joined Abbott Nicholson in 1989 and is a former shareholder and managing partner of the firm. He has conducted arbitrations, mediations and facilitations with the American Arbitration Association and using private arbitrators/facilitators. Gilbride is a Fellow of the Michigan State Bar Foundation and the Detroit Metropolitan Bar Association. He also is a SCAO Supreme Court approved civil mediator and was inducted as a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). His law degree is from the University of Detroit and bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan.