There are very few things I would wish on anyone.
But in my personal opinion, one of the most discouraging experiences a person can have during an appeal is being represented by an attorney who does not communicate or engage meaningfully with their client.
That was my experience when a loved one’s case involved Tracie Gittleman, an attorney contracted through the State Appellate Defender Office (SADO).
Based on what I personally observed and experienced, communication was extremely limited. My loved one did not hear directly from her until I contacted her myself to express concern. That interaction left me deeply troubled about the level of professionalism and client engagement involved.
During one conversation, she stated that if she took calls from incarcerated clients, she would “do nothing but be on the phone all day.” I found that remark dehumanizing and inconsistent with what I believe clients are entitled to expect from appellate counsel.
In my view, lack of communication (regardless of a client’s incarceration status) undermines trust and raises serious concerns about access to effective representation. People in custody remain human beings with constitutional rights, including the right to be informed about their own cases.
It is my opinion that SADO should take client communication concerns seriously when assigning and retaining contract attorneys, especially when those attorneys are handling multiple appeals.
So when I learned—through publicly available disciplinary records—that Ms. Gittleman was reprimanded and fined by the Attorney Discipline Board, I was not surprised. While I recognize that disciplinary outcomes are determined through formal processes, I personally believe stronger accountability measures are warranted when patterns of concern arise.
This post reflects my personal experience and opinion, and I share it because transparency and accountability in appellate defense matter—especially for people who have the least power to advocate for themselves.
Motion-Mill Lawyering: When “Defense” Feels Like Abandonment
In theory, the right to counsel is a cornerstone of the American justice system.
In practice, many defendants and families come to learn that representation does not always feel like advocacy.
Across Michigan and beyond, there is a pattern I have come to recognize—what I describe, as a matter of opinion, as “motion-mill lawyering.” These are cases where the required paperwork is filed and procedural steps are technically completed, but meaningful communication, strategy, and client engagement appear minimal or nonexistent.
For people whose liberty is at stake, that distinction matters.
When Process Replaces Advocacy
Based on the data, my personal experience, and observations, some appellate representations seem to follow a familiar sequence: motions are filed, appeals are denied, and the case ends with a standardized letter explaining why no further action will be taken.
What often appears missing is what families expect most: clear explanations, strategic discussion, and a sense that someone is actively fighting for the client rather than simply closing a file.
For families like mine, this is not an abstract policy discussion. It is lived reality.
A Personal Experience With Silence
When my loved one’s case reached the Court of Appeals, we expected that appellate counsel would serve as his voice. In our experience, communication was extremely limited. He spoke with counsel only once, and only after I repeatedly reached out with concerns.
Phone calls were not returned. There was no substantive discussion of appellate strategy. To our knowledge, no mitigation support was engaged, despite public statements that such resources exist within the system.
From our perspective, filings were made without meaningful consultation or explanation. Whether or not those choices were legally permissible, the absence of communication left us feeling shut out of a process that directly affected a person’s life and freedom.
Outcomes and Perception
Looking at publicly available appellate records, it is easy for families to notice the same names appearing repeatedly with similar outcomes—appeals denied, cases closed, clients left without further recourse.
While appellate loss alone does not prove ineffective lawyering, patterns of minimal communication combined with consistently unsuccessful outcomes understandably erode trust. Families are left wondering whether anyone is truly advocating with urgency, creativity, or care.
In my opinion, when clients begin to feel like an inconvenience rather than a responsibility, the system has already failed them.
A Systemic Problem, Not a Single Person
This is not about labeling one attorney as a villain. It is about a system that, in my view, too often tolerates low-engagement representation in high-stakes cases.
When attorneys are rewarded with continued appointments despite repeated complaints about communication or diligence, accountability weakens. When oversight bodies respond slowly or minimally, families lose faith that constitutional guarantees are being meaningfully protected.
Why This Matters
When what I call motion-mill practices are allowed to persist:
- Clients lose hope, feeling unheard by the very person meant to advocate for them.
- Families suffer, left without information or reassurance during the most stressful moments of their lives.
- Justice suffers, because appellate courts can only consider the arguments that are actually made.
- Accountability erodes, when concerns are dismissed as isolated frustrations rather than signals of a deeper problem.
A Call for Meaningful Accountability
In my opinion, appellate defense, especially for incarcerated clients, demands more than technical compliance. It requires communication, preparation, and a genuine commitment to advocacy.
Attorneys who consistently fail to communicate with clients, who appear to treat appeals as routine paperwork rather than life-altering matters, should be subject to meaningful review and oversight. At minimum, concerns should be investigated transparently. Stronger remedies should be considered where warranted by facts and findings.
Every appeal deserves counsel who treats it as if freedom truly depends on it—because for the client, it does.
Because it does.
Update, January 2026
The Bare Minimum, Case After Case
I wish I could tell you that things have improved, but nothing has changed since the September 2025 reprimand.
In case after case, Gittleman does not file much else other than the appellate brief. This is not zealous advocacy by any stretch, especially when clients are severely over sentencing guidelines. A motion for immediate consideration (MCR 7.211(C)(6)) is the only way to bypass the typical 12-18 month waiting list. This is the bare minimum, and for a 35-year-long career, raises significant concerns.
I’ve identified a pattern where Ms. Gittleman ignores the Minimum Standards for Indigent Criminal Appellate Defense Services standards, filing to file the appropriate post-conviction of appellate motions. This “bare minimum” approach is a systemic failure of a duty to provide effective assistance of counsel.
From September to December 2025:
- People v. David Wayne Vaughan II, Tuscola County, Judge Amy Gierhart
- People v. Thomas Ramone McKoy, Jackson Circuit Court, Judge John McBain
- People v. Deandrey Travell Thompson, Kent County Circuit Court, Judge Mark Trusock
- People v. Stephen Alan Bilbrey, St. Clair County Circuit Court, Judge Daniel Damman
- People v. Dayton Dayriquelataz McKinney, Jackson Circuit Court, Judge John McBain
- People V. Ezekiel Guadalupe Garcia-Argueta, Ionia Circuit Court, Judge Suzanne Hoseth Kreeger
- People v. Andre Edward Franklin, Genesee County Circuit Court, Judge Mark Hatchana
- People v. Calvin Fumond Robinson, Genesee County Circuit Court, Judge Elizabeth Kelly
- People v. Ashley Ann Quantneitzke, St. Clair County Circuit Court, Judge Daniel Damman
- People v. Anthony Tyrone Mitchell, Oakland County Circuit Court, Judge Michael Warren Jr
- People v. Marc Michael Smart, Kalamazoo County Circuit Court, Judge Paul Bridenstine
- People v. Ryan Michael Carter, Kent County Circuit Court, Judge George Quist
- People v. Christopher Charles James Bell, Ingham County Circuit Court, Judge Rosemary Aquilino
- People v. John Mark Poindexter III, St. Clair County Circuit Court, Judge Michael West
- People v. Brandon Lee Matthews, Tuscola County Circuit Court, Judge Amy Gierhart
- People v. Brett Michael Beauchamp, Shiawassee County Circuit Court, Judge Matthew Stewart
- People v. Brandon Raymond Knott, Shiawassee County Circuit Court, Judge Matthew Stewart
- People v. Joshua Jaycob Burrows, Huron Circuit Court, Judge Gerald Prill
When Caseload Volume Becomes a Structural Risk
Since the September 2025 disciplinary reprimand for lack of diligence (Case No. 24-22-GA), additional data raises a broader concern: whether the cited neglect has continued to demonstrate a volume-driven appellate practice that structurally impairs effective representation.
A review of publicly available appellate dockets shows that between September and December 2025, Gittleman accepted or advanced at least eighteen criminal appellate cases across multiple Michigan circuits.
This is not a matter of style or strategy. It is a question of capacity.
National Standards and Caseload Reality
Professional guidance from the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), echoed in State Appellate Defender Office (SADO) training materials, emphasizes weighted caseload limits for appellate counsel. While exact metrics vary by jurisdiction and case complexity, commonly cited benchmarks place effective appellate practice at approximately 15 to 25 weighted cases per year.
Processing eighteen cases in approximately four months represents more than a full year’s recommended workload compressed into one single quarter.
This exceeds accepted standards by any reasonable measure.
Why the Math Matters
Meaningful appellate advocacy requires far more than filing a brief. A single criminal appeal typically involves:
- review of extensive transcripts and exhibits
- individualized legal research tied to the trial record
- consultation with the client
- evaluation of discretionary motions, including emergency relief
Conservatively, a well-prepared appeal requires 80–100 hours of attorney time.
At the observed caseload rate, the available time per case collapses to a fraction of that standard. Under these conditions, time-sensitive advocacy becomes not merely unlikely, but functionally impossible.
The “Brief-Only” Pattern Continues
Across multiple recent cases, a consistent procedural pattern emerges:
- standard appellate briefs filed
- no motions for immediate consideration
- no motions for bond pending appeal
- no requests for expedited relief despite apparent sentencing issues
- cases routed into routine appellate timelines
In January 2026, nearly all of the above cases resulted in summary denials without substantive engagement, reinforcing concerns that filings were procedurally sufficient but substantively minimal.
The issue is not whether representation existed. The issue is whether representation was meaningful.
When Delay Becomes an Injury
In at least one recent case reviewed, the defendant had already served substantial time beyond the upper bound of the applicable sentencing guidelines at the point appellate counsel declined to pursue emergency relief.
In such circumstances, delay is not theoretical harm. It is a completed injury.
Professional norms recognize that cases involving unlawful over-incarceration demand escalation. When those tools are consistently unused, the problem shifts from isolated neglect to systemic risk.
From Individual Discipline to Structural Concern
The Attorney Discipline Board previously found failures of diligence and preparation. The emerging data suggests those deficiencies may now be compounded by excessive caseload volume.
This is not an allegation of bad faith. It is an observation of consequence.
When volume eclipses capacity, individualized judgment erodes. When individualized judgment erodes, urgency disappears. And when urgency disappears, defendants bear the cost in time they cannot recover.
Oversight Exists for a Reason
Defendants whose appellate counsel files a brief but declines to seek emergency relief despite apparent sentencing errors or guideline overages may request a performance review through the Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System under Regulation 4.7.
Standards exist to protect liberty, not just process.
