I wish I could say something has improved since Tracie Gittleman’s September 2025 disciplinary reprimand. It has not.
Case after case, Tracie Gittleman files little beyond the appellate brief itself. In matters involving severe guideline departures and prolonged incarceration, this is not zealous advocacy. It is procedural completion.
For defendants serving time far in excess of sentencing guidelines, delay is not neutral. A motion for immediate consideration under MCR 7.211(C)(6) is often the only mechanism available to bypass the Court of Appeals’ routine 12–18 month timeline. Declining to pursue that relief, particularly where over-incarceration is apparent, represents the bare minimum.
Over a 35-year career, the persistence of that approach raises serious concerns about capacity, diligence, and oversight.
A Pattern of Bare-Minimum Advocacy
Michigan’s Minimum Standards for Indigent Criminal Appellate Defense Services require more than filing a brief. They require timely action, issue development, and pursuit of appropriate remedies.
Yet across multiple recent cases, a consistent pattern emerges: briefs are filed, but discretionary and time-sensitive motions are not.
This is not an isolated oversight. It is repeat conduct, and it continued even after reprimand.
The Caseload: September–December 2025
Between September and December 2025, public appellate dockets show that Gittleman advanced or accepted at least eighteen criminal appeals across Michigan circuits, including:
- 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, 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, 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
This is not anecdote. It is volume.
When Caseload Becomes a Structural Risk
In September 2025, the Attorney Discipline Board issued a reprimand for lack of diligence (Case No. 24-22-GA). Subsequent caseload data raises a broader concern: whether the conditions that produced that finding have been allowed to continue.
Eighteen criminal appeals in roughly four months is not a stylistic choice. It is a capacity problem.
National Standards and Caseload Reality
Professional guidance from the National Center for State Courts, echoed in State Appellate Defender Office training materials, emphasizes weighted caseload limits for appellate counsel.
While metrics vary by jurisdiction and complexity, widely cited benchmarks place effective appellate practice at approximately 15 to 25 weighted cases per year.
Processing eighteen cases in four months compresses more than a year’s recommended workload into a single quarter.
No quality-control framework can function if capacity assumptions are ignored.
Why the Math Matters
A single criminal appeal typically requires:
- comprehensive review of transcripts and exhibits
- individualized legal research tied to the trial record
- client consultation and strategy development
- evaluation of discretionary motions, including emergency relief
Conservatively, a well-prepared appeal requires 80 to 100 hours of attorney time.
At the observed pace, the time available per case collapses to a fraction of that baseline. Under those conditions, meaningful advocacy is not delayed. It is foreclosed entirely.
The “Brief-Only” Pattern
Across these cases, a recurring procedural pattern appears:
- standard appellate briefs filed
- no motions for immediate consideration
- no motions for bond pending appeal
- no expedited relief requests despite sentencing concerns
- cases routed into routine appellate timelines
In January 2026, all of these matters resulted in summary denials, reinforcing concerns that filings were procedurally sufficient but substantively minimal.
Representation existed, we can say that box was checked. However, zealous or even meaningful representation did not.
The Financial Structure That Rewards Volume Over Depth
Michigan’s appellate assigned-counsel system does not operate on flat fees. Attorneys on the MAACS roster, including Tracie Gittleman, are compensated on an hourly basis, with rates tiered by case type under MAACS fee and reimbursement policies.
In theory, hourly billing should reward diligence. In practice, when combined with weak quality-control metrics, it can incentivize high-volume, low-engagement appellate work.
How the Incentive Works
MAACS roster attorneys bill for time spent on appellate tasks and submit Statements of Service (vouchers) for payment. Those vouchers are reviewed and approved through the trial court system before payment is issued.
According to the MAACS Fee and Reimbursement Policy (updated for 2025–2026), the hourly rates for roster attorneys are tiered based on the severity of the case:
| Case Type | Hourly Rate |
| Capital Felony (Life offenses) | $154 / hr |
| Non-Capital Felony (Standard appeals) | $141 / hr |
| Misdemeanor Appeals | $128 / hr |
| Travel Time | $50 / hr |
While $141 per hour sounds like a lot, the “trap” is in how the time is spent. An appellate attorney who actually fights for a client (visiting the prison, researching complex proportionality arguments, and filing emergency motions) might spend 60–100 hours on a case.
However, a “Motion-Mill” attorney often works like this:
- They spend only 10–15 hours per case.
- They use “boilerplate” templates (the “ghost-filing” strategy you saw).
- The Math: If an attorney is cranking out 18 cases in four months at 15 hours each, they are in theory billing approximately $38,000 for just the “bare minimum” filings. By avoiding complex motions (which require more research and potential court hearings), they can churn through more “files” and maximize her billing across multiple counties.
So in theory, a MAACs Roster Attorney working 18 cases per quarter could potentially make $152,000 per year, and all without ever winning a case.
The Structural Problem at Hand
So the MAACs structure creates two pressures:
- Volume pressure
An attorney handling a very large number of appeals simultaneously can increase total compensation by minimizing time spent per case while still meeting the minimum procedural requirements. - Risk-avoidance pressure
Aggressive appellate advocacy — such as emergency motions, requests for immediate consideration under MCR 7.211(C)(6), or challenges that directly criticize trial-court conduct — requires substantially more time and may invite closer scrutiny of billing submissions by the same courts whose rulings are under review. Meaning: if the attorney were to go above the bare minimum and effectively advocate for their client, the judge could intentionally slow their payments.
Why “Just Filing the Brief” Becomes the Default
A full appellate brief is the one filing that reliably generates billable time with minimal procedural resistance. By contrast:
- emergency motions require intensive legal research and rapid drafting
- bond-pending-appeal requests and evidentiary motions require coordination and follow-up
- extensive client and family communication may be time-consuming while producing limited reimbursable hours
When an attorney carries an unusually heavy caseload, these incentives align toward procedural sufficiency rather than substantive urgency.
Caseload Compression and the Quality Gap
National appellate defense standards emphasize weighted caseload limits because meaningful appellate advocacy is labor-intensive. A single criminal appeal often requires dozens of hours of transcript review, individualized legal research, client consultation, and evaluation of discretionary remedies.
When a lawyer advances a volume of cases that compresses a year’s worth of recommended workload into a few months, the math becomes unavoidable. Time per case collapses. Strategic escalation disappears. Delay becomes normalized.
This is not a question of billing legality. It is a question of whether the system’s metrics are capable of detecting when hourly billing has drifted into bare-minimum representation.
The Oversight Question for SADO and MAACS
If an attorney can continue advancing dozens of appeals after a disciplinary finding for lack of diligence, without triggering early intervention, performance review, or caseload limits, then the problem is not individual behavior alone.
It is a systems failure.
The State Appellate Defender Office oversees MAACS. If existing case metrics do not flag excessive caseloads, repeated summary denials, or patterns of omitted time-sensitive motions, then the oversight mechanisms are not functioning as designed.
Standards that measure filings but not outcomes do not protect defendants.
They protect throughput.
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 when appellate counsel declined to pursue emergency relief.
In such circumstances, delay is not speculative harm. It is a completed injury.
Professional norms recognize that unlawful over-incarceration demands escalation. When escalation tools are consistently unused, the failure is systemic.
From Individual Discipline to Systemic Failure
The Attorney Discipline Board previously identified failures of diligence and preparation. The post-reprimand caseload suggests those deficiencies may now be compounded by volume.
This is not an allegation of bad faith. It is an observation of consequence.
- When volume eclipses capacity, judgment erodes.
- When judgment erodes, urgency disappears.
- When urgency disappears, defendants lose time they cannot recover.
Oversight Exists for a Reason
The MAACS Regulations exist for a reason. And those standards exist to protect liberty, not merely to confirm that a brief was filed and an attorney gets their check.
If oversight mechanisms cannot distinguish between zealous advocacy and procedural minimalism, then quality control is not functioning. It is decorative.
What Concerned Loved Ones Can Do When Appellate Advocacy Falls Below the Standard
Families and loved ones often sense when something is wrong long before a system does. Unfortunately, appellate defense is structured in ways that make poor performance hard to see from the outside and even harder to challenge. Still, there are concrete steps available when counsel appears to be doing the bare minimum.
1. Document, Do Not Diagnose
Concerns are taken more seriously when framed as observable facts, not conclusions.
Loved ones should keep a written record of:
- dates of attorney contact or non-response
- whether transcripts were obtained and reviewed
- what filings were made and, critically, what filings were not made
- whether time-sensitive remedies were discussed or declined
- how long the defendant has been incarcerated relative to guideline ranges
The goal is not to argue motive. It is to show missed actions tied to known standards.
2. Request a MAACS Performance Review
The Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System allows for performance concerns to be raised under its regulations when counsel may not be meeting required standards.
A request for review should:
- identify the specific case(s)
- describe concrete omissions (for example, failure to seek emergency relief in an over-incarceration context)
- reference the Minimum Standards for Indigent Criminal Appellate Defense Services
- remain factual and restrained
Requests are typically directed through the MAACS Administrator.
This process is not fast, but it creates a formal record that oversight bodies cannot ignore.
3. Contact the State Appellate Defender Office (SADO)
Although State Appellate Defender Office does not supervise private roster attorneys day-to-day, it does oversee the MAACS system and its integrity.
Communications to SADO should focus on:
- systemic concerns rather than personal grievances
- repeated patterns across cases if known
- risks to defendants’ liberty caused by delay
SADO is positioned to see aggregate trends that individual families cannot.
4. Consider Attorney Discipline as a Parallel, Not Primary, Path
The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board addresses ethical violations, not quality of advocacy. Discipline is slow, retrospective, and rarely results in immediate relief for an incarcerated client.
That process may be appropriate when there is clear neglect or misconduct, but it should not be relied upon as the sole mechanism for protecting a defendant’s rights in real time.
Oversight and substitution mechanisms exist precisely because discipline alone is not enough.
5. Ask Directly About Substitution of Counsel
In some circumstances, particularly where counsel has failed to pursue available remedies or has become non-responsive, families may request substitution of appellate counsel through MAACS.
Requests are stronger when supported by:
- documented omissions
- guideline overages or unlawful sentencing concerns
- prior disciplinary history if relevant
- evidence that the attorney’s workload may be impairing representation
Substitution is discretionary, but silence guarantees nothing changes.
Why This Step Matters
Appellate systems are built on paperwork, timelines, and metrics. Loved ones are often the only people focused on outcomes.
When families raise concerns grounded in standards and documented conduct, they do more than advocate for one defendant. They help expose whether the system’s quality controls are functioning at all.
Oversight does not begin with a dashboard. It begins when someone refuses to accept “a brief was filed” as proof that justice was done.
Why All of This Really Does Matter
This is not about just one attorney. In fact, the scariest part, is that this IS just one attorney in the article. If I had exercise
Michigan’s MAACS framework was designed to ensure independent, effective appellate advocacy. If attorneys can continue high-volume, bare-minimum practices after formal discipline without meaningful intervention, the system is not enforcing its own standards.
At that point, the failure is not individual.
It is institutional.
