In November, the Brennan Center for Justice state court report,and Northwest Law Review He hosted a symposium focused on state constitutions. Several state Supreme Court justices who participated in the program agreed to brief interviews. state court report” is published as a series.

Judge Elizabeth Welch was elected to the Michigan Supreme Court in 2020 and joined the bench in January 2021. Prior to joining the Court, her legal practice included practicing at a large law firm and extensively pro bono representation of individuals and nonprofit organizations. She also served as Vice President and Trustee of the East Grand Rapids Public Schools Board of Education and currently serves as Director and Vice President of the Steelcase Foundation, an organization dedicated to improving access to quality public education and fostering communities that support children and their families.

In an interview, Welch talked about the changes artificial intelligence is bringing to the practice of law, the similarities between school funding and court funding, and why law students need to prepare for a turning point in their careers.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

When you were in law school, what did you expect your legal career to be like?

I went to law school with a clear interest in public service. I grew up thinking I might go into politics, but as it often does, life takes detours. I had the opportunity to work at a large law firm and thought my career would be in labor and employment law. I’ve been doing that for 25 years. I never thought I would become a judge. However, I have been fortunate that my career has allowed me to do a lot of extracurricular activities that many lawyers tend to do. We are a very civic-minded group. I loved it and the extra work outside of it drew me back into public service.

I am grateful to have worked at a major law firm. They brought me on board and made sure I developed litigation skills.

What advice do you wish someone had given you when you were a law student?

It’s okay if you don’t know exactly what you want to do. Soon people will start asking, “What kind of lawyer do you want to be?” You may think you know it, or you may not know it at all. Or maybe your situation changes while you’re still in school. I wish someone had said, “It’s okay!” The pressure to know the answer to that is very high. The reality is, it’s up to you to decide, but the first choice you make may not be where you land. In fact, the odds are probably not.

The great thing about this profession is that you can change direction. You can decide that you’re really interested in this other area of ​​law, and there’s nothing stopping you from finding a way to make it work. You can also decide that there is a niche that needs to be filled and start thinking about how to fill it. I’ve seen countless friends do it and it was scary at first. They had to find mentors outside of their usual world, and they found them because people in this profession are incredibly generous with their time and support each other.

You may not be able to practice law. Many of my friends who started out as lawyers are now in the prime of their careers but no longer practice. They run nonprofits, work for elected leaders, and serve as strategists. Please be flexible. You’ll see detours, some of which may be great. But know that sometimes you will be disappointed, and someday you may look back and be surprised that those disappointments led you in the direction of great success.

What challenges are students facing today that are different from your experience?

Generative AI is a big thing. Lawyers are notoriously slow to adapt, so I’m really proud that there are so many people working so hard to solve this problem. Although it is not yet clear what legal work will look like, I think it is safe to say that many of the tasks that new lawyers typically perform will be performed by AI. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. I think it will allow businesses to accept more customers because some tasks will be faster. But we still need to train new lawyers, and it’s hard to know what that will look like.

For law students, they enter the profession at this incredibly important moment. When I was in law school, Westlaw and natural language were very important studies in legal research. This is an exponentially bigger deal. It’s a tool, so there’s a huge opportunity. And I think people who embrace that and find ways to use it productively and ethically will do well.

What do you enjoy about being a state court judge?

I really love my job. I especially love interacting with the public on a regular basis. Campaigning is very hard, but I think interaction is very important and helps us do our job better. We’re connected to what’s happening on the front lines.

I also love the administrative work we do. The state courts have a state court administrative office, and the Supreme Court is located above that office. We can focus on the system and how we can better serve our people. I am very proud to be part of a court that has focused on this issue for the past eight years. We have committees, task forces, and various groups focused on access to justice and equity. They have done incredibly specific work. For example, our courts have made serious efforts to help self-proclaimed litigants navigate the courts through in-person assistance, court kiosks, or online self-help tools. We’re always thinking of new ways to help people navigate the courthouse.

What is something people might not know about your state constitution?

It has been amended 39 times since 1963, and the number of amendments has increased significantly over the past 20 years. Direct democratic processes have become more common in Michigan.

The Michigan Constitution also protects the state’s natural resources, with specific language directing the Legislature to protect land, air, and water.

Perhaps one of the most interesting pieces of information is the proposed amendment that would protect the right to conduct stem cell research.

What is the most memorable opinion you have attended?

people vs park Coming in 2022. I wrote it. We extended the (U.S. Supreme Court) decision mirror Factor used in cases involving juvenile life without parole proceedings. We have expanded these elements beyond minors to 18 years of age. The framework was later extended to 19- and 20-year-olds in Michigan. park Cruel or Unusual Punishment Provisions of the Michigan Constitution and (U.S. Supreme Court) mirror and montgomery case. The opinion also addresses neuroscience and the evolving understanding of young people’s brains.

The second case is Mothering Justice v. Attorney GeneralThe case included direct democracy efforts to mandate paid sick leave and increase the minimum wage. Both initiatives are citizen-driven efforts and were successful in gathering enough signatures to place the initiatives on the November ballot, as required by the Michigan Constitution. However, the initiative did not appear on the ballot because Congress passed the law before the election.

Under the Michigan Constitution, this is one of the means by which the Legislature can make such a provision. The second option is for Congress to amend the provision and place it on the ballot next to the original proposal. And a third path would allow lawmakers to reject the proposed initiative, resulting in its language being placed on the ballot for voters to decide. Those are the options. But Congress chose a fourth path. They adopted initiatives, amended them in lame-duck sessions, and dramatically changed laws proposed by citizens. We determined that this violates the direct democracy provisions of the Michigan Constitution.

What are some of the challenges facing state courts?

Some of the same things our students are facing. Everywhere I go, generative AI is at the center of conversations. People don’t know what’s going to happen. How do you plan? How do you staff? What ethical rules are involved? For example, everyone generally considers video to be reliable evidence. But now we’re in this incredibly complex world of AI-generated video. The courts will have to deal with that.

On a personal level, I am currently using several AI tools. You will not spend less time preparing for oral argument, but you will be able to dig deeper into difficult questions. Easy questions are solved faster, and the really difficult questions have more time to dig deeper.

Funding is always an issue. Before this job, I spent 20 years working on public school issues, and the way funding works, at least in Michigan, is similar. There are funding units that raise money from all different sources. Some of the funding comes from federal grants, some from state appropriations, and some from local resources. The need for courts is often greatest when the economy is not doing well. Even if you have less money, you still need to meet your needs. It’s always a challenge.

There is also a sense of distrust in the system. It happens everywhere, and courts are not immune to it. In the divisive online world we live in, how can we ensure that people trust our third branch of government? Appellate court judges are of course important in shaping the law, but trial court judges are where the public engages with and builds trust in the court system. When someone goes to court for a divorce, debt collection, or landlord-tenant issue, it is important that the judge treats the parties kindly, that they feel heard, and that the parties feel that the system is fair.

How do you respond when people say the courts are too politicized?

I wish there was a magic answer to that question. Again, I truly believe in the power of the courts. They are very local and our judges are deeply involved in their communities. Local courts are a place where we can solve problems and meet people where they are. I don’t hear anyone commenting that these courts are politicized. But you will certainly hear something like that about certain state supreme court decisions. People don’t realize how many cases in state Supreme Court cases are decided unanimously or where members of different judicial ideologies agree on the outcome. There are many cases. Anything controversial gets noticed, but how often people forget what we agree with. Perhaps we need to talk about it more.

I think it’s important that judges don’t spout a lot of rhetoric, whether it’s an opinion or a bench. The best legal decisions are well-reasoned and persuasive, without throwing personal jabs at other judges. I was taught in law school and early in my legal career that if you’re using hyperbolic and insulting language, it’s not particularly persuasive legal writing. Judges should emulate professionalism and do their best to ensure the trust of the third division.

Erin Geiger-Smith is a writer and editor at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Recommended Citation: Erin Geiger Smith, Conversation with Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth WelchSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (March 3, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/conversation-michigan-supreme-court-justice-elizabeth-welch