Alane & Chartier, PLC

By a unanimous vote Mary Chartier was recently appointed as the Chairperson of the Litigation Committee. The Litigation Committee serves as an educational and training resource for litigators, monitors litigation related to animal law, and coordinates the filing of amicus briefs in relevant cases.

Attorney Natalie Alane has been recently appointed to the Collaborative Practice Institute of Michigan’s board of directors.  The Collaborative Practice Institute of Michigan is the premier organization in the state that promotes education about and the development of collaborative divorce.  The institute is a wealth of information for both for those who are looking for an alternative method of separating or divorcing and for attorneys who are interested in collaborative law.

Attorney Natalie Alane has formed the Lansing Area Collaborative Practice Group, a group of attorneys, mediators, mental health professionals, and financial professionals who are dedicated to promoting the practice of collaborative law in the Lansing area.  The group selected Natalie as its President.  Membership is growing fast, and the LACPG will be instrumental in administering the upcoming collaborative law training for interested practitioners in May 2008.  For more information on collaborative law, please visit the Collaborative Practice Institute of Michigan and the International Academy for Collaborative Professionals.

The United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the Michigan Court Rules prohibiting attorneys from engaging in “undignified or discourteous conduct” toward the bench and requiring attorneys to treat those involved in the legal process with “courtesy and respect” are too broad and vague to survive a constitutional challenge. The court held that while the Michigan Supreme Court has the right to regulate attorney conduct, its court rules regarding lawyer speech and conduct violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court’s ruling invalidated the Michigan Supreme Court’s 2006 opinion upholding the rules and will most likely be appealed. Check back for updates about this fascinating free speech case.

In a 5-2 decision, the Michigan Supreme Court held that requiring photo identification in order to vote is constitutional. The majority held in In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71 that the photo identification requirement contained in MCL 168.523 was constitutional because it is a reasonable way to preserve the purity of elections. Two justices vehemently dissented because they believe the legislation is unconstitutional. The photo identification significantly impairs the fundamental right to vote for thousands of Michigan citizens by unduly burdening their right to vote.

Voters should be aware that while there is a photo identification requirement, there is also an affidavit exception. This allows a voter to sign an affidavit stating that he or she does not have photo identification. A registered Michigan voter who signs this affidavit may still be challenged, but there is an exception to the photo identification requirement. A voter should not be denied the right to vote merely because he or she does not have photo identification.

This website will be updated with other information pertinent to how this statute will be practically applied when it becomes available.

To read the full opinion, click here. Watch this website for updated information pertinent to how this statute will be practically applied.