Butzel’s Appellate Law Practice Group is comprised of prominent appellate attorneys that possess a hard-won reputation as a team of elite and powerful practitioners, recognized for making countless contributions to the success of our clients and supporting the Firm’s many Practice Groups, Specialty, and Industry Teams across all office locations. You and your organization can count on our Appellate Law Practice Group when you require counsel to navigate this specialized area of practice.

The Appellate Law Practice Group has achieved a lengthy and distinguished record of success spanning several decades of representation, in landmark cases including:

  • Groesbeck v. Michigan State Telephone Company, 172 N.W. 799 206 Mich. 372 (1919), where the Michigan Supreme Court acknowledged that the President can exert control over local telephone and telegraph lines under federal war time powers.
  • Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974), where the United States Supreme Court overturned the City of Detroit’s metropolitan cross-district school busing plan.
  • Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), where the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the University of Michigan undergraduate and law schools’ affirmative action policies.

Our attorneys possess a broad range of experience in appellate courts around the country. Members of this group have clerked for judges in the Michigan Supreme Court and United States Courts of Appeal.

This Practice Group’s vast experience includes preparing briefs and arguing before numerous appellate courts of law, including:

  • Michigan Court of Appeals
  • Michigan Supreme Court
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Federal circuits
  • United States Supreme Court

We also represent clients in appellate matters before federal and state administrative review bodies.

Butzel’s Appellate Law Practice Group is frequently retained to represent clients seeking to defend or challenge a result obtained by prior counsel. Our representation includes individual clients, entities across a broad range of commerce, plaintiffs, and defendants.


Alerts & Publications


News & Events



  • Advised Anti-Defamation League following unsuccessful appeal to Tenth Circuit for violation of federal Wiretap Law and common law defamation, and defeated subsequent attorneys' fee award application
  • Defense of major regional hospital system in an anti-trust case alleging conspiracy among hospital and physicians to exclude a cardiologist from the hospital staff
  • Defended major university and its president in a case challenging university's consideration of race in admissions decisions
  • Represented defendant/appellee in U.S. Supreme Court where, in a 7-2 ruling, the High Court held that predicate "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) need not include as an element a domestic relationship.
  • Filed amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of 13 state-specific mutual-bond funds, addressing the issue of whether income-tax exemption for interest income from in-state municipal bonds violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause
  • Prepared an Amicus Curiae Brief to the U.S. supreme court urging the Court to grant states and local government units latitude in the regulation of firearms
  • Obtained dismissal of False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuit against healthcare provider and affirmance of dismissal in appeal (Chesbrough, et al. v. VPA, P.C. (6th Cir. August 23, 2011))
Jump to Page

By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.