A lawyer since 1981, Michael Welsh grew up in Summerland, BC and has strong roots in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley. He received his bachelor’s degree from Cornell University in New York and his law degree at the University of British Columbia. After graduation he worked as a judge’s clerk for the Supreme Court of BC for a year and then joined one of Vancouver’s most prestigious law firms, learning his craft from some of the top legal counsel in the province. He has practiced law in Vancouver, the Sunshine Coast and the Okanagan Valley. A specialist in courtroom litigation, he has extensive experience from the most serious criminal law cases for both defence and prosecution, to personal injury claims, complex family problems and a wide range of other civil litigation. He is a regular author of articles on a variety of topics for the legal journal for BC lawyers. He has the ability to listen carefully and grasp a problem, then build a strong case for his clients. He is listened to by judges: some judicial comments are as follows:

On Mr. Welsh’s courtroom skills:
Chief Judge Stansfield of the Provincial Court of British Columbia: 
“In his characteristically persuasive submissions, Mr. Welsh urges me to consider that public safety will be assured most decidedly if [his client] can be motivated and supported and encouraged to address his alcohol problem and if he is bound by court orders, which it appear have been successful in the past, to refrain from driving and to abstain from the consumption of alcohol [which] in Mr. Welsh's submission should be served as a conditional sentence.”

The British Columbia Court of Appeal: 
“Mr. Welsh submitted that the Crown's theory [of the murder], that [his client] administered a drug and stupefied [the victim] is rank, unadulterated speculation.  … There is no evidence of drugs missing from the hospital. This is, according to Mr. Welsh, a huge gap in the Crown puzzle…In my opinion, the evidence that [his client] had access to drugs, and the theory that she may have used them to cause the death of [the victim], was of little or no probative value and was highly prejudicial to the defence. The evidence ought not to have been admitted.”

Mr. Justice Thackeray of the Supreme Court of British Columbia:
“This [personal injury] case has been, in my opinion, well presented ...  It has been well presented by Mr. Welsh on behalf of the plaintiff.  He reviewed the evidence from the plaintiff, the medical reports, and other supporting documents and evidence.  As well, he made an articulate submission as to damages.”

On his opinions in legal journals:
Mr. Justice Bouck of the Supreme Court of British Columbia:
“The question then arises as to what was the intended purpose of [the summary trial rule] when first enacted …?  From counsel’s perspective, two articles published in The Advocate speak positively about Rule 18A’s usefulness:  M. F. Welsh:  "Judging the Summary Trial Rule" (1988) 44 The Advocate, 173; D. W. Roberts Q.C., "Rule 18A Summary Trials – Under Attack Again", (1992) 50 The Advocate, 49.
In Mr. Welsh‘s words, [it was] hoped the Rule would, “weed out those cases that do not (or should not) require a full scale trial.”

Madam Justice Dillon of the Supreme Court of British Columbia:
“Although there are cases which suggest that the court should grant an order as a matter of course after property is linked to the subject matter of the action.      
See M. Welsh, "Can Property Be Preserved? (A Comment on Rule 46)", (1997) 55 The Advocate 65) …”