University of Michigan Student Defense Lawyer
Two of the most important cases in American student-defense law arose at the University of Michigan, and both still shape what happens when the university opens a case against a student today. If you have received a meeting request from the Office of Student Conflict Resolution, an integrity referral from your college, or a letter from a professional school questioning your standing, this page explains the terrain.
Overview
The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is a public institution, so the Fourteenth Amendment applies. Under Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), a disciplinary suspension requires notice and an opportunity to respond, and longer separations require more. The Sixth Circuit went further in Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018) — a case that arose at Michigan itself — which requires public universities in credibility-based disciplinary cases to allow cross-examination.
Ann Arbor also produced the other pillar of this field. In Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985), the Supreme Court deferred to the university’s academic judgment in dismissing a medical-track student after a board-exam failure. So the university that generated some of the strongest procedural rights in student discipline also generated the strongest deference doctrine for academic decisions. Which line of cases governs yours depends on how the matter is classified, and that classification is worth fighting about early.
Where University of Michigan cases come from
Nonacademic misconduct runs under the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities, the university’s conduct policy for the Ann Arbor campus, administered through the Office of Student Conflict Resolution. Academic integrity is handled closer to the classroom: the College of Engineering has operated its own Honor Code with a student Honor Council since 1916, and other colleges apply their own integrity procedures. On top of that sit the professional schools — law, medicine, and the health programs — each running academic standing and professionalism review of its own, where a finding follows the student into licensure and residency paperwork. Integrity referrals built on similarity or AI-detection scores deserve particular scrutiny; that subject is covered on the academic misconduct and honor code page.
Which process you are in matters
A conduct charge, an integrity charge, a Title IX complaint, and an academic-standing decision travel four different routes at Michigan, with different decision-makers, deadlines, and rights. The distinction is not academic bookkeeping. Under Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978), academic judgments receive far more deference from courts than disciplinary findings — and Ewing extended that deference at this very university. A decision that is disciplinary in substance but wears an academic label is worth contesting on that basis alone. Identify your track before you write anything: Title IX, academic dismissal or suspension, or the conduct and integrity routes above.
What to do first
Pull the current Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities from the university’s own site — the Office of Student Conflict Resolution publishes it at oscr.umich.edu — along with the integrity policy for your particular college and your course syllabus. Do not rely on a summary, including this one. Then write down every deadline in the notice, request your file, and preserve your drafting history, messages, and notes before they are gone. Do not give a statement or sit for an interview until you know what the university claims to have; a separate charge for dishonesty during the process is often easier to prove than the original allegation.
What I can help with
- Reading the governing policy against the charge or decision letter
- Preparing your account, your documents, and your questions
- Testing whether the university followed its own published procedures
- Scrutinizing software-based evidence, including AI-detection and similarity reports
- The written response and appeal, to the extent the policy permits
- Serving as your advisor where the process allows it
- Negotiating sanction terms, notations, and disclosure language
What a lawyer may actually do in your case depends on the policy governing your track. Some Michigan processes allow an advisor of choice, some restrict what the advisor may say, and the answer sits in the current published procedure — which is why reading it is the first step.
Common questions
Does Doe v. Baum mean I get a hearing with cross-examination?
The Sixth Circuit’s rule applies to credibility-based disciplinary cases at public universities, and Michigan is public. Whether your case fits that description — and how the university’s current procedures implement it — depends on the type of charge and the facts. It matters most where the case turns on whose account to believe.
My case is about an AI-detection or plagiarism score. Is that enough to find me responsible?
A software score is an accusation, not proof, and these tools have documented error modes. The response usually comes from your own materials: drafting history, version files, and a syllabus that defined what was permitted. Preserving that evidence immediately is more valuable than any argument made later without it.
I am in the law school or a medical program. Is my situation different?
Substantially. Professionalism and integrity findings in professional programs travel into the MSPE or dean’s letter, residency applications, and bar character-and-fitness review, so the disclosure consequences deserve as much attention as the sanction itself. See professionalism and fitness concerns, and the fees and scope page for how a flat-fee record review works as a starting point.
Nearby Michigan schools: Eastern Michigan University, UM-Dearborn, UM-Flint, and Michigan State. The full list is on the Michigan student defense page.
This is general information about the matters I handle and the law that applies to them. It is not legal advice about your situation, and the law in this area can change. For advice on your matter, start with the Full Read + Game Plan — your entire file read, straight answers, and exactly what to do next, in what order.
This page is informational and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the institution named on it.
Attorney advertising. Zachary Gaynor is admitted in Florida and its federal courts, not in Michigan; Michigan matters are handled through the framework described on the nationwide practice page — federal-law assessment, campus-process support where the school’s policy permits an advisor, and association with local counsel or pro hac vice admission where required.