––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
- Posted November 07, 2013
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Recognition
On Wednesday, Oct. 2, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners recognized October as Oakland County Adult Treatment Court and Juvenile Drug Court Awareness Month during its evening meeting in the Oakland County Board of Commissioners Auditorium in Pontiac. Oakland County Board Vice Chairman Jeff Matis (second from left) and Commissioner Marcia Gershenson (center) were happy to present the proclamation to (l-r) Drug Treatment Court Supervisor Jackie Howes-Evanson, retired Judge Ed. Sosnick, and Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Joan E. Young. Since 2001, the circuit court has established the Therapeutic Drug Treatment Courts for adults and juveniles to address substance abuse issues of offenders who are incarcerated for drug-related crimes. These courts have decreased recidivism rates and helped participants achieve employment to break the cycle of drug dependency and cut taxpayers’ costs for incarceration.
Photo by John Meiu
headlines Detroit
- Zearfoss to deliver Michigan Law commencement address ahead of planned retirement
- War with Iran fails to produce a ‘win’ that U.S and Israel were blindly seeking
- From conferences to certificates, MSU’s Indigenous Law and Policy Center leads the future of Tribal Law
- Business Law Seminar featuring 10 judges slated May 7 in Troy
- Daily Briefs
headlines National
- Exodus: Thousands of federal lawyers left their jobs by choice or by force in 2025
- Wisconsin moves to UBE to ease access-to-justice woes
- The Burton Book Review: A discussion on ‘When You Come at the King’
- Facebook, Instagram pulling ads from lawyers looking for plaintiffs ... to sue them
- Florida law school pressed to include chapter of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA
- BigLaw firm faces questions over $35M bill




