WMU-Cooley Law Review honors scholarly briefs filed before Michigan Supreme Court

The WMU-Cooley Law Review hosted its 31st annual Distinguished Brief Award ceremony on July 21, 2016, at the Country Club of Lansing. The event celebrates the best of Michigan’s practicing bar and formally recognizes authors of the three most scholarly briefs filed with the Michigan Supreme Court in 2015.

The briefs are judged on seven criteria: question presented, point headings, statement of the case, argument and analysis, style, mechanics, and best overall brief. The winning briefs will be published in an upcoming edition of the WMU-Cooley Law Review.

The briefs were judged by Hon. Brian K. Zahra, Michigan Supreme Court;  Hon. Bridget Mary McCormack, Michigan Supreme Court; Hon. Rosemarie E. Aquilina, Ingham County 30th Circuit Court; Hon. Patricia D. Gardner, Kent County 17th Circuit Court;  Honorable Kirsten Frank Kelly, Michigan Court of Appeals First District;  Hon. Kathleen Jansen, Michigan Court of Appeals Second District; Hon. Patrick M. Meter, Michigan Court of Appeals Fourth District; Hon. Christopher M. Murray, Michigan Court of Appeals First District; Hon. Michael J. Riordan, Michigan Court of Appeals First District; and Hon. Paul J. Denenfeld, Kent County 17th Circuit Court.

This year’s top briefs were:

• Case Name: People v. Lockridge

Law Firm: State Appellate Defender’s Office

Attorneys: Brett DeGroff, Desiree Ferguson, and Michael L. Mittlestat

 • Case Name: People v. Uribe

Law Firm: Eaton County Prosecutor’s Office

Attorneys: Brent E. Morton and Douglas R. Lloyd

• Case Name: People v. Seewald

Law Firm: Macomb County Prosecutor’s Office

Attorneys: Joshua R. Van Laan, Victor A. Fitz, and Eric J. Smith

 In addition to dinner and an awards presentation, honorary guest Michigan Supreme Court Justice Richard H. Bernstein introduced the evening’s keynote speaker, fellow Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Markman.

Markman spoke about the importance of well-organized and well-written briefs, not only for effective advocacy for clients, but for helping the Supreme Court appreciate why the case is important to Michigan’s larger jurisprudence.