State Bar Positions:
Rule Amendments & Administrative Orders

Rule Amendments (in order of effective date)

Amendments Effective January 1, 2017

2013-18 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 2.004, 3.705, 3.708, 3.804, 3.904, 4.101, 4.201, 4.202, 4.304, 4.401, 5.119, 5.140, 5.402, 5.404, 5.738a, 6.006, and 6.901 (would expand authority to use videoconferencing)
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.004, 3.705, 3.708, 3.804, 3.904, 4.101, 4.201, 4.202, 4.304, 4.401, 5.119, 5.140, 5.402, 5.404, 5.738a, 6.006, and 6.901 would permit courts to expand the use of videoconferencing technology in many court proceedings.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-39 - Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.112
The proposed amendments of MCR 6.112 would provide clarification to the procedure for amending a notice of intent to seek an enhanced sentence by requiring such amendment to be approved by the court, and would eliminate the provision that makes the harmless-error standard inapplicable when a notice of intent to seek an enhanced sentence is not filed timely.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-06 - Proposed Amendments of Rules 3.925, 8.119, and 8.302 and Proposed New Rule 5.133 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.925, 8.119, and 8.302 and proposed new MCR 5.133 are an expected progression in the development of policies and procedures arising from a larger project that was initiated, in part, through the Access to Records Committee in 2009. These policies and procedures are intended to standardize management of court records and to provide a uniform basis for developing parameters on the use of technology in creating, accessing, routing, maintaining, and disposing of court records. These particular amendments will assist in implementing the goals of 2013 PA 199 and 201 and improving the policies and procedures adopted by the Court in 2012 under Administrative File No. 2006-47.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective September 1, 2016

2015-12 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.605, 3.606, 3.928, 3.944, 3.956, 6.001, 6.425, 6.445, 6.610, and 6.933
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.605, 3.606, 3.928, 3.944, 3.956, 6.001, 6.425, 6.445, 6.610, and 6.933 were submitted by the Michigan State Planning Body for the Delivery of Legal Services to the Poor. The proposed rule revisions are intended to provide clarity and guidance to courts regarding what courts would be required to do before incarcerating a defendant for failure to pay.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-17 - Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.306
The proposed amendments of MCR 7.306 would expressly authorize a respondent attorney to file a brief in actions of superintending control when the complainant objects to a dismissal by the AGC or ADB; the proposed amendments would also require the party filing for superintending control to serve copies of the complaint and brief on the respondent and would allow 21 days for respondent attorney to submit a brief, with copies to be served on the plaintiff and defendant.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-04 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 2.306
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.306(C)(5) and (C)(5)(b) would replace references to the word “conferring” or “confer” with “communicating” or “communicate.” The proposed amendment of MCR 2.306(C)(5)(c) would clarify that the term “communicate” would include electronic transmission by text message, email or other electronic manner.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 1, 2016

2014-09 ​Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.215
The proposed amendments of MCR 7.215(A)-(C) were submitted by the Court of Appeals. Proposed MCR 7.215(A) would clarify the term “unpublished” as used in the rule. The proposed amendment of MCR 7.215(B) would provide more specific guidance for Court of Appeals judges regarding when an opinion should be published. Finally, in response to what the Court of Appeals describes as an increased reliance by parties on unpublished opinions, the proposed revision of MCR 7.215(C) would explicitly note that citation of unpublished opinions is disfavored unless an unpublished decision directly relates to the case currently on appeal and published authority is insufficient to address the issue on appeal.
SBM Position: View Position
Appellate Practice Section Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Positon
Probate & Estate Planning Section Position: View Position
Real Property Law Section Position: View Position
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position
Committee on Justice Intiatives Position: View Position

Amendments Effective January 1, 2016

2015-09 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.403 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.403(O) would allow a reasonable fee to be included in a request for costs by attorneys who represent themselves or who are employed by a party to the case for legal services provided after case evaluation is rejected.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-40 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.506 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed revision of MCR 2.506(G)(3) would insert new language that would allow electronic or facsimile transmission of subpoenas to attend when the subpoenas are directed to specific identified departments or agencies and when there is a memorandum of understanding as described by the amendment between the parties; the revision also would require a confirmation to be received within 48 hours after email or facsimile transmission of the subpoena.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-11 Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.613
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.613 would provide clarification that the signature of a minor is required on the consent document (not the petition) for the minor’s change of name and that the minor must sign the document in the presence of the judge.
SBM Position: Oppose

2014-02 ​Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.106
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.106(A) would clarify that a court would determine issues concerning defendant’s pretrial release, if any, at the time of defendant’s arraignment on the complaint and warrant.
SBM Position: View Position
Criminal Issues Initiative Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position

Amendments Effective October 1, 2015

2015-07 Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.101
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.101 would eliminate subrule (B)(1)(a)(ii) and make other coordinating changes to reflect statutory revisions in 2015 PA 14 and 15.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-49 Amendments of MCR 3.903, 3.920, 3.961, and 3.965
The amendments of MCR 3.203, 3.920, 3.961, and 3.965 were prompted by the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394 (2014), to provide clarification and procedural provisions consistent with the Court’s holding in that case.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective September 1, 2015

2014-37 Proposed Amendments of Rules 3.963, 3.966, and 3.974 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.963, 3.966, and 3.974 would provide clarity regarding procedures to be followed when an emergency removal of a child has occurred but a dispositional hearing has not been held.
SBM Position: Support.

2013-36 Proposed Amendments of Subchapter 7.300 of the Michigan Court Rules
These proposed amendments would update the rules regarding practice in the Michigan Supreme Court, and would renumber and reorganize the rules to be consistent with those in the Court of Appeals for the ease of the appellate practitioner and greater judicial efficiency.
SBM Position: Support with recommended amendments from the Civil Procedure & Courts Committee, the Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee, and the Appellate Practice Section.
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position
Appellate Practice Section Position: View Postion

2013-35 Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.211 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.211(C)(1)(c) would clarify that an appellant, in a case tried without a jury, is not required to file a motion for remand or a motion for a new trial to challenge the great weight of the evidence to preserve the issue for appeal.
SBM Position: Support.
Civil Procedure Committee Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 1, 2015

2013-22 Proposed Amendment of Rule 4.201 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposed amendment would clarify that the typical procedure for setting aside a default judgment in MCR 2.603 applies in landlord/tenant cases that result only in a default money judgment.
SBM Position: View Position

2015-03 Amendment of MRPC 1.15
The amendment of MRPC 1.15 adds “credit union” to the definition of “eligible institution” for deposit of IOLTA funds. This change reflects a recent federal statutory amendment that extends federal insurance protection to IOLTA deposits held in credit unions. PL 113-252.
SBM Position: Support
Criminal Issues Initiative Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position
Justice Policy Initiative Position: View Position

Amendments Effective January 1, 2015

2014-42 Amendments of MCR 6.006, 6.104, 6.110, and 6.111 and adoption of new MCR 6.108
The amendments of MCR 6.006, 6.104, 6.110, and 6.111 and adoption of new Rule 6.108 create procedural rules for conducting probable cause conferences and amend current provisions of the preliminary examination court rules to coordinate with 2014 PA 123 and 124.
SBM Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position
Criminal Law Section Position: View Position

2014-18 Amendment of Rule 6.001 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 6.001(B) includes additional rules and subrules that are found in Chapter 6 that govern procedural issues relevant to criminal cases falling under the jurisdiction of district courts.
SBM Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position

2014-08 Amendment of MCR 3.221
SBM Position: View Position

2014-06 Amendment of Rule 2.004 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 2.004 allow an inmate’s participation by video or videoconferencing.
SBM Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position

2013-29 Amendments of Rules 5.108, 5.125, 5.208, and 5.403 of the Michigan Court Rules
These Chapter 5 rule amendments, submitted to the Court by the Probate and Estate Planning Section of the State Bar of Michigan, comport to recent legislation regarding guardianships and conservatorships.
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position

2013-27 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.203 of the Michigan Court Rules
These amendments of MCR 2.203, submitted by the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly, add explicit language allowing parties to be added to a counterclaim or cross-claim as otherwise provided by rule, and require that a court clerk issue a summons for those added parties.
SBM Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Position

2013-21 Amendments of Rules 6.112 and 6.113 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position

2013-09 Amendment of MCR 3.216
The amendment clarifies that distribution of property in divorce or separate maintenance actions is subject to domestic relations mediation.
SBM Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Position

2012-02 Amendments of MCR 2.302
The amendment clarifies that distribution of property in divorce or separate maintenance actions is subject to domestic relations mediation.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective September 1, 2014

2013-41 Amendments of Administrative Order No. 1998-5
The amendments of Administrative Order No. 1998-5 modify the way county-funded courts pursue disputes over court funding. These modifications are adopted with immediate effect, but pending public comment and a future public hearing, in light of the recent enactment of 2013 PA 172.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-19 Amendment of MCR 3.602
The amendments of MCR 3.602 apply to all other forms of arbitration that are not described in the newly adopted Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, MCL 691.1681 et seq.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-04 Amendment of MCR 3.705
The amendment of MCR 3.705(C) prohibits publication of information on the Internet that could reveal the identity or location of the protected party.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-03 Amendment of MCR 2.302
The amendment of MCR 2.302 clarifies that discovery is available in postjudgment proceedings in domestic relations matters.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 1, 2014

2013-28 Amendment of Rule 2.510 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 2.510 allow courts to authorize prospective jurors to complete and return questionnaires electronically, and allow courts to create and maintain them electronically (i.e., in any medium authorized by court rules pursuant to MCR 1.109). The change also deletes language in MCR 2.510(D) to clarify that the chief judge is responsible for initiation of the court’s policies for summoning prospective jurors.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-10 Amendments of Rules 2.107 and 2.117 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 2.107 provides clarification by adding the phrase “final order” so that after either a final judgment or final order has entered, papers should be served on the party after the time for appeal has passed. The amendment of MCR 2.117 states that the duration of an attorney’s appearance extends until a final judgment or final order is entered. This amendment is intended to clarify that representation by an attorney who appears in a postjudgment motion ends with the final order related to that matter (after the period for appeal of right has passed).
SBM Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Position

2012-30 Amendments of Rule 2.621 and Rule 2.622 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.621 and MCR 2.622 were submitted to the Michigan Supreme Court on behalf of the “Receivership Committee” (a committee created because of a need identified by the Debtor/Creditor Rights Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan) to expand and update the rules regarding receivership proceedings.

SBM Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Position

2012-26 Amendment of Rule 8.111 of the Michigan Court Rules This amendment of MCR 8.111 clarifies that the rule applies regardless whether a court is acting in the capacity of a trial court or an appellate court, such as a circuit court considering an appeal of a district court or probate court determination.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-23 Amendment of Rule 8.109 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 8.109 provide explicit authority for courts to use audio and video recording equipment to make a record of court proceedings and require that trial courts using recording equipment follow the standards for recording proceedings that are published by the State Court Administrative Office.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective March 1, 2014

2012-18 Amendment of MCR 2.512
The Court has determined that the function of adopting, amending, and repealing model criminal jury instructions should be structured similar to that for model civil jury instructions. As part of that structural change, this amendment requires trial courts to use model jury instructions in criminal cases under the same circumstances in which they are used in civil cases, i.e., if the instructions are applicable, accurately state the applicable law, and are requested by a party.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective January 1, 2014

2013-24 Proposed Rescission of Administrative Order No. 2011-3 and Proposed Adoption of Administrative Order No. 2013-___
Proposed Administrative Order 2013-___ would rescind Administrative Order No. 2011-3 and update the guidelines found in that order. The updates would revise the guidelines to make them more reflective of disposition rates based on statewide court data and to accommodate the fact that there may be delay in any case type that would make 100 percent disposition nearly impossible. However, the 100 percent disposition expectation would remain in place for PPO cases.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-20 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.305 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed changes of MCR 2.305 would make subrule (E) applicable only to actions pending in another country, while new subrule (F) would cross reference the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, which establishes the procedures to be used in seeking a deposition or discovery subpoena in Michigan for use in an action that is pending in another state or territory.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-12 Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.313 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments would clarify that the decision whether to grant rehearing or reconsideration in the Michigan Supreme Court should be made consistent with the standard incorporated in MCR 2.119(F)(3), similar to the reference for consideration of such motions in the Court of Appeals contained in MCR 7.215(I)(l).
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee: View Position

2013-02 Amendments of Rules 3.002, 3.800, 3.802, 3.807, 3.903, 3.905, 3.920, 3.921, 3.935, 3.961, 3.963, 3.965, 3.967, 3.974, 3.977, and 5.402 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposal incorporates provisions of the newly enacted Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act into specific provisions within various rules relating to child protective proceedings and juvenile status offenses.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-06 Proposed Amendment of Rule 9.221 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 9.221 would add a new subrule (I) that would require the Judicial Tenure Commission to notify a court’s chief judge if a referee or magistrate is subject to a corrective action that does not rise to the level of a formal complaint, including a letter of caution, a conditional dismissal, an admonishment, or a recommendation for private censure. The new requirement would not apply to a dismissal with explanation.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-04 Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.218 of the Michigan Court Rules
These proposed amendments would codify state and federal statutory and regulation revisions that have occurred in the last decade, and would add specificity and detail to the existing language in MCR 3.218.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-31 Proposed Amendment of Rules 7.105, 7.111 and 7.205 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed changes would permit the filing of a reply brief in support of an application for leave to appeal in the circuit court and the Court of Appeals. The proposed changes were submitted by the Appellate Practice Section of the State Bar of Michigan.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-26 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.403 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 2.403(O)(8) would add a reference to a motion for rehearing or reconsideration (consistent with the Court of Appeals opinion in Meemic Ins Co v DTE Energy Co, 292 Mich App 278 [2011]), as well as a reference to other postjudgment motions to toll the period of time in which a party may file a request for case-evaluation sanctions.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective September 11, 2013

2012-03 Proposed Adoption of Rule 1.111 and Rule 8.127 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposal includes two separate proposed rules that relate to foreign language interpreters. The first proposed rule, MCR 1.111, would establish the procedure for appointment of interpreters, and establish the standards under which such appointment would occur. The proposed rule includes alternative language for subrules (B) and (F)(4).

The second proposed rule, MCR 8.127, would create a board to oversee certification of interpreters and other interpreter-related functions, and provide a procedure for imposing discipline upon interpreters who commit misconduct. The board’s structure and responsibilities are similar to those of the Court Reporting and Recording Board of Review described in MCR 8.108.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective September 1, 2013

2012-36 Adoption of Administrative Order No. 2013-6
The administrative order establishes procedures for courts that are required to or choose to implement a business court.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-36 Amendment of Rule 2.112 and Rule 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 2.112 provide a means to identify business court cases and the placement of those matters on the business court docket. The amendment of MCR 8.119 allows business court opinions to be published.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-35 Amendment of Rule 8.111 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 8.111 clarifies that reassignment under a concurrent jurisdiction plan or family court plan is effective on the date of the reassignment, and the successor judge will handle not only the new cases that are filed in that court, but also will preside over any matters then pending and postjudgment matters that arise. A court will be required to submit a local administrative order to the State Court Administrative Office describing the revised caseload distribution when a reassignment occurs.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-28 Amendment of Rule 7.203 of the Michigan Court Rules
Under 2012 PA 333, an order by a court in which a case is assigned to a business court is not subject to appeal by right or leave in the Court of Appeals. That prohibition is codified in MCR 7.203(D). Note that the decision to assign a case to a business court is appealable to the court’s chief judge under the amendment of MCR 2.112 adopted in ADM File No. 2012-36.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-19 Amendments of Rules 3.913, 3.963, 3.965, and 3.974 of the Michigan Court Rules
The changes of MCR 3.913, 3.963, 3.965, and 3.974 incorporate the statutory changes enacted in 2012 Public Act 163.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-25 Retention of Amendment and Additional Amendment of Rule 3.101 of the Michigan Court Rules
The Court retains the amendment of MCR 3.101, which extended the effective period for a writ of garnishment. This order further adopts a similar conforming amendment of MCR 3.101(F).
SBM Position: View Position

2010-34 Amendment of Rule 6.419 of the Michigan Court Rules
New subrules (A) and (B) are modeled on FR Crim P 29. As with the 1994 Amendments to FR Crim P 29, this amendment should remove the dilemma in cases in which the trial court would feel pressured to make an immediate, and possibly erroneous, decision or violate the former version of the rule by reserving judgment on the motion. The stakes in this area are unusually high because double jeopardy precludes appellate review of a trial court’s decision to grant a motion for directed verdict of acquittal before the jury reaches a verdict. See, e.g., Evans v Michigan, ___ US ___; 133 S Ct 1069; 185 L Ed 2d 124 (2013). Allowing the court to reserve judgment until after the jury returns a verdict mitigates double jeopardy concerns because “reversal would result in reinstatement of the jury verdict of guilt, not a new trial.” Id., 133 S Ct at 1081 n 9, citing United States v Wilson, 420 US 332; 95 S Ct 1013; 43 L Ed 2d 232 (1975).
SBM Position: View Position

2005-11 Amendments of Canons 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Amendment of Rule 8.2 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct These amendments reflect an effort to make the judicial canons consistent regarding law-related and nonlaw-related extrajudicial activities in which judges may participate, and to clarify the activities that are allowed or prohibited. The proposal retains the explicit prohibition on a judge individually soliciting funds, and likewise prohibits the use of the prestige of the office for that purpose. The newly-constituted Canon 4, which consolidates previous Canon 4 and Canon 5 into one canon, permits a judge to engage in various specific activities, including serving as a member of an honorary committee or joining a general appeal, speaking at or receiving an award at an organization’s event, and allowing the judge’s name to be used in support of a fundraising event. The proposal also includes several suggested revisions that were recommended during the public comment period.

In addition to combining Canons 4 and 5 into one canon, the amendments eliminate the language of Canon 7C that prohibited a judge from accepting a testimonial, and move the reformulated language from Canon 7C(2) prohibiting a judge from accepting a contribution of money to Canon 2G. Also, the proposal clarifies Canon 2 so that activities allowed under Canon 4 are not considered a violation of the principle of use of the prestige of office. Further, the amendments clarify that certain canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct (specifically Canons 1, 2, 4[A]-[D] and 7) apply to all candidates for judicial office as part of the new language inserted as Canon 5. Finally, MRPC 8.2 (which applies to lawyers) is amended to reflect that the judicial canons applicable to judicial candidates are set out in new Canon 5.

Nearly all of the current language in Canon 2, 4, 5, and 7 is retained in this proposal. The new language adds explicit provisions to describe the types of activities that are allowed or prohibited for judges which until now had been undefined and therefore the source of confusion.
SBM Position: View Position
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 1, 2013

2012-20 Amendment of Rule 3.616 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 3.616 provide that the files of adult foster care youth are confidential, but may be accessed by the youth and by DHS. The amendment eliminates the requirement that the petition and order be served on the previous court in which the youth’s child protection case was disposed because the case is no longer active. This order also corrects numbering of subsection (F)(2)(i)-(iv) so that the subsections are labeled with letters (a)-(c).

SBM Position: View Position

2012-13 Amendment of Rule 3.976 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 3.976 requires a court to indicate on the record the reason that no petition for termination of parental rights need be filed, thus providing a record to future auditors who review the state’s foster care program that the court explicitly chose the option.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-12 Amendment of Rule 3.925 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 3.925 clarify the rules and procedures for retention and destruction of various records in juvenile cases.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective January 1, 2013

2012-16 Proposed Administrative Order No. 2012-XX (proposal would allow State Court Administrative Office to authorize judicial officer's appearance by video communication equipment)
This administrative order would allow the State Court Administrative Office to authorize a judge to preside using videoconferencing equipment in certain types of proceedings.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-10 Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.979
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.979 implements the judicial action requirements of 2011 PA 225 and 2011 PA 229 by: (1) acknowledging court jurisdiction over guardianships for which the Department of Human Services will continue providing subsidies after the wards reach age 18; and (2) requiring that the supervising courts conduct annual review hearings and make appropriate findings. Adoption of the proposed amendment will enable Michigan to receive federal Title IV-E funding for the post-18 guardianship program.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-09 Proposed Revision of Administrative Order No. 1989-1
The proposed amendment of Administrative Order No. 1989-1 adds new language that clarifies and expands the standards for allowing film or electronic media coverage of court proceedings in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
SBM Position: View Position

2006-47 Amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules
This amendment explicitly allows for the use of an electronic signature, and allows notarization by electronic process.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-18 Amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules (duty to advise defendant of a lifetime monitoring requirement)
This amendment codifies the holding of the recently released opinion in People v Cole, 491 Mich ___ (2012), in which this Court held that a trial court must advise a defendant who is subject to lifetime electronic monitoring requirement of that part of the sentence during the plea proceeding.
SBM Positon: View Position

Amendments Effective December 5, 2012

2012-15 Proposed Administrative Order No. 2012-XX (proposed implementation of trial court performance measures)
This administrative order would implement the use of performance measures in trial courts.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-18 Amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules (duty to advise defendant of a lifetime monitoring requirement)
This amendment codifies the holding of the recently released opinion in People v Cole, 491 Mich ___ (2012), in which this Court held that a trial court must advise a defendant who is subject to lifetime electronic monitoring requirement of that part of the sentence during the plea proceeding.
SBM Positon: View Position

Amendments Effective September 1, 2012

2006-04 Amendment of Rule 3.204 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 3.204 removes the requirement to file a new action as a supplemental complaint, which allows trial courts to consolidate cases in a way that is more compatible with trial court case management systems.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 24, 2012

2012-05 Adoption of Rule 3.616 of the Michigan Court Rules
New MCR 3.616 implements the judicial action requirements of 2011 PA 225, the Young Adult Voluntary Foster Care Act, MCL 400.641 et seq.
This Court adopted the new rule to become effective April 1, 2012, to coincide with implementation of the Department of Human Services' new program to provide continuing voluntary foster care for youth between the ages of 18 and 21, which will begin operating on April 1, 2012. Having this new court rule in place will enable Michigan to receive federal Title IV-E funding for that program.
By this same order, the Court is inviting public comment to allow interested persons an opportunity to comment and to provide an opportunity to be heard at a future public hearing. This will allow the Court to consider amending the rule in response to any comments that it receives.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 1, 2012

2010-26 Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.210 and Rule 7.212 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 7.210 and MCR 7.212 would extend the time period in which parties may request that a court settle a record for which a transcript is not available and would clarify the procedure for doing so.
SBM Position: View Position

Administrative Orders

Administrative Order No. 2006-6—File No. 2003-47
Position: No position. Authorization granted to the Civil Procedure and Courts Committee to advocate its position.

Administrative Order 2009-01—File No. 2002-37
SBM Position
Civil Procedure and Courts Committee Position
e-Filing Task Force Position
Justice Initiatives Committee Position

Third Amended Administrative Order No. 2007-2—File Nos. 2002-34, 2002-44
Filing Appeal of Right; Appearance; Record on Appeal; Briefs.
Position: Concerning the amendments relating to intake proceedings only, the Board of Commissioners voted to:

  • Support generally the ongoing efforts of the Court of Appeals to reduce appellate delay.
  • Support funding for appellate delay reduction initiatives to reduce the "warehouse."
  • Oppose the published revisions to MCR 7.212 that eliminate stipulated extensions of time to file briefs and shorten the time for filing briefs and reply briefs.
  • Recommend further study and urge attention to the recommendations of the Report of the State Bar of Michigan Task Force on Appellate Delay Reduction.
    May 5, 2003, Comments
    August 28, 2003, Comments; Tabs A-C
    November 5, 2003, Comment

Proposed Rule Amendments

2017-06 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.300 et seq. of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.300 et seq. would clarify certain practices and procedures in the Supreme Court, especially as they pertain to electronic filing by parties and electronic notification of the Court’s opinions and orders, as well as require only the signed originals of documents to be filed in hard copy.
SBM Position: View Position

2017-04 – Proposed Amendment of Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 4(E)(4)(a) and (c)

The proposed amendment would increase the acceptable value for a gift given incident to a public testimonial, and likewise would increase the threshold amount for disclosure of a gift. This proposed increase would be the first revision since the $100 value threshold was adopted in 1974.

The threshold amount for reporting gifts is widely variable among the states and federal government. The disclosure threshold for reporting gifts in other states, established by statute or court rule, ranges from $50 to $500. Many states do not have a threshold amount at all; instead, such states may prohibit the acceptance of gifts from certain classes of donors, or alternatively allow judges to accept a certain class of gifts without regard to value for specific events, such as a wedding, or 25th or 50th wedding anniversary. In considering whether to publish for comment a proposed change, the Court also considered the increase in the value of money since the $100 threshold was adopted. According to the American Institute for Economic Research, the value of $100 in today’s economy is $495.92.

In settling on a structure for purposes of publication, the Court used the federal disclosure rule and threshold as its model. For federal judges, the gift disclosure amount is $375, as established by the Judicial Conference. The instructions for submitting the annual disclosure report require a federal judge to:

Report information on gifts aggregating more than $375 in value received by the filer, spouse and dependent child from any source other than a relative during the reporting period. Any gift with a fair market value of $150 or less need not be aggregated to determine if the $375 reporting threshold has been met.

Thus, similar to the federal rule, the proposed amendment would increase the disclosure threshold to $375, but would require gifts to the judge and his family members from a single source to be aggregated for purposes of reporting. Gifts with value less than $150 would not need to be included in this aggregate amount. Further, the proposed amendment would not change the restriction that a gift may be accepted under this subsection only if the donor is not a party or other person whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-41 – Proposed Amendment of Rules 1.0, 1.2, 4.2, and 4.3 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rules 2.107, 2.117, and 6.001 of the Michigan Court Rules
Proposed amendments of Rules 1.0, 1.2, 4.2, and 4.3 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules 2.107, 2.117, and 6.001 of the Michigan Court Rules were submitted to the Court by the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly. The proposed rules are intended to provide guidance for attorneys and clients who would prefer to engage in a limited scope representation. The proposal, which limits these types of “unbundled” arrangements to civil proceedings, describes how such an agreement is made known to the court and other parties, what form of communication should be conducted with clients in a limited scope representation, and how the agreement is terminated. The proposed rules also would explicitly allow attorneys to provide document preparation services for a self-represented litigant without having to file an appearance with the court.

The proposal submitted by the Representative Assembly provides for a limited scope representation where the “client gives informed consent, preferably confirmed in writing,” at MRPC 1.2(b). The Court included this language in the order publishing the proposal for comment, but also provided an alternative formulation for this particular provision that would require such an arrangement to be confirmed in writing, unless the relationship falls within several typical scenarios in which a writing would be unnecessary or impracticable.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-40 – Proposed Amendment of MCR 2.625 and 3.101
The proposed amendments, submitted by the Michigan Creditor’s Bar Association, would address recent amendments of MCL 600.4012, would clarify the authority and process for recovering postjudgment costs, and would provide clearer procedure for garnishment proceedings.
SBM Position: Support proposed amendments to MCR 2.625(E), 3.101(B)(1)(a)(i), 3.101(B)(1)(c), 3.101(G)(2), 3.101(I)(3), 3.101(I)(5), 3.101(J)(2), 3.101(J)(6), 3.101(K)(1), 3.101(K)(2)(g), as these amendments effectuate the language set forth in MCL 600.4012, and oppose MCR 2.625(F), 2.625(K), 3.101(D)(2), 3.101(J)(6)(e), 3.101(R)(2) as these amendments create or change parties’ substantive rights or reduce the amount of information required to be provided to garnishees.

2016-39 – Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.903, 3.932, and 3.936
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.903, 3.932, and 3.936 are intended to clarify the procedures used for consent calendar proceedings in juvenile delinquency cases, consistent with the recent enactment of 2016 PA 185.
SBM Position: Support.

2016-33 – Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.216
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.216 would update the rule to be consistent with 2016 PA 93, which allows a court to order mediation if a protected party requests it and requires a mediator to screen for the presence of domestic violence throughout the process.
SBM Position: Support the proposed amendments with the following amendments: 

  1. Revise MCR 3.216 as follows in bold:

Unless a court first conducts a hearing to determine whether mediation is appropriate, the court shall not submit a contested issue in a domestic relations action, including postjudgment proceedings, if the Pparties who are subject to a personal protection order or other protective order, or who are involved in a child abuse and neglect proceeding, may not be referred to mediation without a hearing to determine whether mediation is appropriate. The court may order mediation following a hearing if a protected party requests mediation.

  1. Revise MCR 3.216(H)(2) as follows in bold:

The mediator must make reasonable inquiry as to whether either party has a history of a coercive or violent relationship with the other party. Throughout the mediation process, the mediator must make reasonable efforts to screen for the presence of coercion or violence that would make mediation physically or emotionally unsafe for any participant or that would impede achieving a voluntary and safe resolution of issues. A reasonable inquiry includes the use of the domestic violence screening protocol for mediation provided by the State Court Administrator Office as directed by the Supreme Court.

2016-32 – Proposed Amendments of MCR 5.801, 5.802, 7.102, 7.103, 7.108, 7.109, 7.202, 7.203, 7.205, 7.208, 7.209, 7.210, 7.212, and 7.213
The proposed amendments of Rules 5.801, 5.802, 7.102, 7.103, 7.108, 7.109, 7.202, 7.203, 7.205, 7.208, 7.209, 7.210, 7.212, and 7.213 of the Michigan Court Rules would require all appeals from probate court to be heard in the Court of Appeals, instead of the bifurcated system that previously required some probate appeals to be heard in the Court of Appeals and some to be heard in the local circuit court. The proposal also would establish priority status for appeals in guardianship and mental illness cases, similar to child custody cases.

SBM Position: Support the proposed amendments subject to the following amendments:

  1. MCR 5.801:Delete subsection (A)(1), add reference to MCR 5.101(C) to paragraph (A), revise definition of “final orders” in paragraph (A) to remove reference to MCR 7.202(6)(a) to avoid circularity, and delete “as may be hereafter” in subsection (A)(35);
  2. MCR 7.202(6)(a):Add subparagraph stating that anything designated as a “final order” in MCR 5.801(A) is a “final order” in a civil case, which would render proposed subparagraphs (a)(vi) and (a)(vii) unnecessary;
  3. MCR 7.202(6)(a)(vi):Delete as unnecessary, or, alternatively, combine proposed subsection (6)(a) (vi) with existing (6)(i) to avoid duplication.
  4. MCR 7.202(6)(a)(vii):Delete as unnecessary and confusing, or, alternatively, change “as defined in MCR 5.801(B)” to “as described in MCR 5.801(A);”
  5. MCR 7.212(A)(1)(a)(i) and 7.212(A)(2)(a)(i):Change proposed language as follows:“adult or minor guardianship or conservatorship case under the Estates and Protected Individuals Act Code, guardianship of the person or estate case under the Mental Health Code, mental illness involuntary mental health treatment cases under the Mental Health Code . . .”
  6. MCR 7.213(C)(2): Change proposed language as follows:“guardianship cases under the Estates and Protected Individuals Act Code and under the Mental Health Code, conservatorship cases under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code, and mental illness involuntary mental health treatment cases under the Mental Health Code.”

2016-29 – Proposed Amendments of MCR 7.121
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.121 would update the court rules to incorporate statutory changes enacted in 2015 PA 3 and 207.
SBM Position: Support.

2016-24 – Proposed Amendment of MCR 9.115
The proposed amendment of MCR 9.115(F)(5) would clarify that a hearing panel shall be authorized to allow parties to submit an amended stipulation. If a hearing panel rejects an amended stipulation, the matter would be referred to a different hearing panel to conduct a hearing. This proposed language was submitted jointly by the Attorney Grievance Commission and Attorney Discipline Board.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-11 – Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.208
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.208 would implement 2014 PA 378 permitting alternate procedures to set contempt proceedings to reduce the steps necessary to schedule a hearing. The proposed amendments also would clarify when the FOC must participate in a contempt hearing. In addition, the proposed amendments would implement 2014 PA 381 making the Office of Child Support responsible for determining allocation and distribution of child support payments, and would allow the friend of the court to refrain from enforcing child support orders in situations in which it is inappropriate or unproductive for the friend of the court to continue to enforce child support orders.
SBM Position: Support.

2015-22 – Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.203 and MCR 3.208
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.203 would allow the friend of the court to use automated databases such as the United States Postal Services' National Change of Address database to identify outdated addresses and update them to correct addresses. The proposed amendments would allow a party or a party’s attorney to agree to receive notices and other court papers from the friend of the court electronically. The proposed amendments would move the requirement to provide notices to attorneys of record from MCR 3.208.
SBM Position: Support the proposed amendments subject to the following amendments to MCR 3.203:

  1. Remove all references to text messaging.
  2. In MCR 3.203(A)(3)(g), change “sent after 4:30 p.m.” to “after the close of business day.”
  3. In MCR 3.203(A)(3)(j), change “the conclusion of the case” to “a judgment or final order is entered and all appeals have been completed.”

2015-20 – Proposed Amendment of Rules 8.110 and 8.111 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments would explicitly provide that corrective action may be taken by the State Court Administrator, under the Supreme Court’s direction, against a judge whose actions raise the question of the propriety of the judge’s continued service. Such corrective action may include relieving a judge of the judge’s caseload, and reassigning such cases to another judge or judges. The proposed amendments also would provide explicit authority for a chief judge (with approval from the state court administrator) to order a judge to submit to an independent medical examination if there is a good faith doubt as to the judge’s fitness that prompted the chief judge’s report. 

SBM Position: View Position

2015-18 – Proposed Amendment of MCR 9.108
The proposed amendment of MCR 9.108 would clarify that the Court has the authority to enjoin an attorney from practicing law.
SBM Position: Support.

2015-15 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.425 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 6.425 would expressly provide for a procedure under which appointed counsel may withdraw in light of a frivolous appeal in a way that protects a plea-convicted criminal defendant’s right to due process. This amendment would ensure that a plea-convicted defendant could obtain the type of protections expressed in Anders v California, 386 US 738 (1967), even if the defendant’s appeal proceeds by application and not by right. In such a case, a motion to withdraw may be filed in the trial court, which does not currently have a rule establishing the procedure like that in the Court of Appeals at MCR 7.211(C)(5). The timing of the procedure is intended to ensure that if an attorney’s motion to withdraw is granted, the defendant would have sufficient time to file an application for leave to appeal under MCR 7.205(G).
SBM Position: View Position

2015-14 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 9.200 et seq.
The proposed amendments of MCR 9.200 et seq. were submitted to the Court by the Judicial Tenure Commission to rearrange and renumber the rules applicable to the JTC to provide clarity and facilitate navigation. The proposed amendments of the JTC also include new rules and revisions of current rules regarding costs and sanctions, as well as other substantive proposed changes. This proposal includes most of the revisions suggested by the JTC, as well as some additional substantive changes added by the Court for purposes of public comment.
SBM Position: View Position

2015-11 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 404(b) of the Michigan Rules of Evidence
This proposed amendment would require the prosecution to provide reasonable notice of other acts evidence in writing at least 14 days before trial or orally in open court on the record.
SBM Position: View Position

2015-02 – Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.213
This proposal, submitted by the Michigan Court of Appeals, would make permanent the mediation pilot project that has been operating under authority of Administrative Order No. 2015-8 since October 2015. The proposed amendments have been adopted with immediate effect to enable the mediation program to continue during the comment period.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-45 ​Proposed Adoption of MCR 5.731a The proposed rule would require clinical certificates to be marked and filed as confidential and would allow only persons who have been found by the court to have a legitimate interest in the confidential documents to be granted access.
SBM Position: View Position
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position
Justice Policy Position: View Position

2014-28 - Proposed Amendment of MCR 2.403
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.403 would require the ADR clerk to notify counsel of the scheduled case evaluation panelists when sending the initial notice of case evaluation. Further, the proposal would require the ADR clerk to send notice of replacement evaluators no later than two business days before the hearing. If notice is not sent in that time, the hearing would be adjourned or the parties could stipulate to proceed.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-37 Proposed Amendments of Rules 3.963, 3.966, and 3.974 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.963, 3.966, and 3.974 would provide clarity regarding procedures to be followed when an emergency removal of a child has occurred but a dispositional hearing has not been held.
SBM Position: Support.

2014-13 - Proposed Amendment of MCR 2.403
This proposed amendment, submitted by the Michigan Judges Association, would reduce the time period from 28 days to 14 days in which a party would be required to accept or reject a case evaluation award.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-03 - Proposed Adoption of Administrative Order No. 2016-XX (regarding antinepotism policy and would rescind Administrative Order No. 1996-11)
SBM Position: View Position

2013-26 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.209 of the Michigan Court Rules
These alternative proposed amendments relate to stay bonds. MCR 7.209 is ambiguous whether filing a stay bond automatically stays enforcement proceedings, or whether a stay of proceedings is wholly within the discretion of the trial court and Court of Appeals. In this administrative file, the Court is publishing for comment two alternative proposals. Alternative A would clarify the rule so that it is clear that only a trial court judge or the Court of Appeals may order a stay of proceedings. Alternative B, modeled loosely on the recent revisions of the circuit court appeals rule (specifically MCR 7.108), would amend the rule to establish the principle that, like appeals to circuit court, filing a bond automatically stays further proceedings in a case, including enforcement of a judgment or order.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-18 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 2.004, 3.705, 3.708, 3.804, 3.904, 4.101, 4.201, 4.202, 4.304, 4.401, 5.119, 5.140, 5.402, 5.404, 5.738a, 6.006, and 6.901 (would expand authority to use videoconferencing)
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.004, 3.705, 3.708, 3.804, 3.904, 4.101, 4.201, 4.202, 4.304, 4.401, 5.119, 5.140, 5.402, 5.404, 5.738a, 6.006, and 6.901 would permit courts to expand the use of videoconferencing technology in many court proceedings.

2013-18 Proposed New Rules 2E.001 et seq. of the Michigan Court Rules
This series of proposed new “2E” rules contains court rules regarding e-filing in Michigan courts. Please note that this proposed order is part of a group of documents in this file that has been published for comment, including a proposed administrative order regarding e-filing rules and the proposed e-filing standards.
SBM Position: View Position
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee: View Position
Domestic Violence Committee: View Position
Committee on Justice Initiatives: View Position
General Practice Section: View Position

2013-18 Proposed Administrative Order No. 2013-
This proposed administrative order would require the State Court Administrator to promulgate e-filing standards, and would require courts that offer e-filing to comply with those standards. Please note that this proposed order is part of a group of documents in this file that has been published for comment, including proposed e-filing rules and proposed e-filing standards.
SBM Position: View Position
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee: View Position
Domestic Violence Committee: View Position
Committee on Justice Initiatives: View Position
General Practice Section: View Position

2013-18 Draft Standards for E-filing
These proposed standards provide additional guidance for courts planning for implementation of e-filing in their jurisdiction. The proposed standards are published to provide a context for the proposed e-filing rules and proposed administrative order that have also been published for comment in this file.
SBM Position: View Position
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee: View Position
Domestic Violence Committee: View Position
Committee on Justice Initiatives: View Position
General Practice Section: View Position

2013-18 Proposed Amendments of Rules 3.210, 3.215, and 6.104 of the Michigan Court Rules and Proposed New Rule 8.124 of the Michigan Court Rules The new court rule would allow courts to use videoconferencing in court proceedings upon request of a participant or sua sponte by the court, subject to specified criteria and standards published by the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO). Amendments of MCR 3.210, MCR 3.215, and MCR 6.104 would be necessary to include references to the new court rule. If the new rule is ultimately adopted, MCR 3.904, MCR 5.738a, and MCR 6.006, and Administrative Order No. 2007-01 would be rescinded. To provide context for consideration of the proposed rule, the proposed standards for the use of videoconferencing are attached below. In addition, the proposal includes a draft administrative order that would require SCAO to adopt videoconferencing standards, and require courts to comply with those standards.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-18 Proposed Administrative Order No. 2013
This proposed administrative order would require the State Court Administrator to establish videoconferencing standards and would require that the appellate and trial courts conform to those standards. Please note that this proposed administrative order is part of a group of documents in this file that has been published for comment, including proposed videoconferencing rules that would amend MCR 3.210, 3.215, and 6.104, and would adopt MCR 8.124, a new rule, and draft videoconferencing standards, which are attached at the end of that order.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-17 Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.206 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.206 would limit the ability of a court to require one party to pay another party's attorney fees during the proceeding to those cases that involve divorce or separation of married persons.
SBM Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Position
Domestic Violence Committee Position: View Position

2013-11 Proposed Amendments of MCR 9.106 and MCR 9.128
The proposed amendments of MCR 9.106 and MCR 9.128, requested by the Attorney Grievance Commission, would identify costs and restitution imposed on an attorney in a disciplinary proceeding as a fine, penalty, or forfeiture.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-36 Proposed Administrative Order No. 2013-X
The proposed administrative order would establish procedures for courts that are required to or choose to implement a business court.

2012-30 Proposed Amendments of Rule 2.621 and Rule 2.622 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.621 and MCR 2.622 were submitted to the Michigan Supreme Court on behalf of the “Receivership Committee” (a committee created because of a need identified by the Debtor/Creditor Rights Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan) to expand and update the rules regarding receivership proceedings.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-30 Proposed Amendment of Rules 5.801, 7.102, 7.103, 7.108, and Rule 7.109 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments were submitted to this Court by the State Bar of Michigan Probate and Estate Planning Section in conjunction with the Michigan Judges Association, Michigan Probate Judges Association, and the Michigan Court of Appeals. The proposed changes would direct that all appeals from probate court be considered by the Court of Appeals instead of some orders being appealed to the Court of Appeals and other orders being appealed to the circuit court.
Appellate Practice Section: View Position

2011-14 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.105 of the Michigan Court Rules ("diligent inquiry" would include an online search if the moving party has reasonable access to the Internet)
The proposed amendment of MCR 2.105 would state that a “diligent inquiry” in support of a request for substituted service must include an online search if the moving party has reasonable access to the Internet.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-10 Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.118 of the Michigan Court Rules
The concept for this proposal was submitted by the State Bar of Michigan Prisons & Corrections Section. The section asserts that if a prosecutor or victim files an appeal of a decision of the Michigan Parole Board to grant parole, the appellee (the prisoner) should be entitled to be represented by counsel if the prisoner is indigent. The proposed amendments would require a prisoner to request representation within 14 days of notice of the appeal, and establish other procedural steps.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-08 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.116 of the Michigan Court Rules
Inclusion of the revised proposed clarifying language in MCR 2.116(C)(7) would clarify the procedure for bringing a motion for summary disposition on the grounds of a forum selection clause.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-03 Proposed Amendment of Rule 9.113 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposed amendment would clarify that the grievance administrator is required to disclose an answer in a Request for Investigation to the complainant, but may decline to disclose supporting documents if there is good cause not to do so.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-06 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.603 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 2.603 would clarify that a court clerk could enter a default judgment if the requested damages are less than the amount claimed in the original complaint, to reflect payments that may have been made or otherwise credited.
SBM Position: View Position
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Postion

2010-32 Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.210
These proposed amendments of MCR 3.210 would clarify default and default judgment procedures to be used in domestic relations cases. The proposed amendments also would allow parties to reach agreement on issues related to property division, custody, parenting time, and support, and enter a consent judgment on those issues if the court approves. These proposed amendments were developed by a workgroup of family law practitioners and judges (assisted by SCAO staff) who were instrumental in creation of an earlier version of this proposal that had been published for comment. Following reconsideration of some provisions of the earlier version, members of the group reconvened and formulated a revised proposal, which is the subject of this publication order.
SBM Position: View Position

2010-31 Proposed Amendment of Rule 5 of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners
This proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement that an applicant for admission by motion be required to express an intention to maintain an office in the state. Michigan is among a minority of states that requires that assertion, and maintaining this provision has resulted in at least one state rejecting the petition for admission of a Michigan lawyer because Michigan retains this type of requirement.
SBM Position: View Position

2010-25 Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.210 of the Michigan Court Rules
This amendment was proposed by James Neuhard, former director of the State Appellate Defender Office. The proposed amendment would require trial courts to become the depository for exhibits offered in evidence (whether those exhibits are admitted or not), instead of requiring parties to submit exhibits offered in evidence when a case is submitted to the Court of Appeals on a claim of appeal.
SBM Position: View Position
Appellate Practice: View Position
Criminal Law Section: View Position

2010-14 Proposed Adoption of New Rule 6.202 of the Michigan Court Rules
The intent of this proposed new rule is to create a "notice and demand" rule that would allow forensic reports to be admitted into evidence without the forensic analyst's presence if the defendant does not object. The proposed rule is based on favorable discussion by the United States Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, 557 US ___; 129 S Ct 2527 (2009). Although the Supreme Court struck down the Massachusetts procedure for admitting forensic evidence without attendance by the forensic analyst, it noted that some states have adopted "notice and demand" provisions that create a procedure by which forensic reports may be admitted into evidence if the defendant does not object to the report's entry.
SBM Position: View Position
Criminal Law Section: View Position

2006-04 Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.204 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment would remove the requirement to file a new action as a supplemental complaint, which would allow trial courts to consolidate cases in a way that is more compatible with trial court case management systems.
SBM Position: View Position

Declined to Adopt and File Closed

2014-12 Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.211 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.211 would provide language to allow the parties to stipulate (in their judgment of divorce, separate maintenance, or annulment) to postjudgment binding arbitration of identified personal property under MCL 600.5070 et seq.
SBM Position: Support
Alternative Dispute Resolution Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Position

2012-11 Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.302
This proposed amendment would add a harmless-error provision identical to that in FR Crim P 11(h).
SBM Position: View Position

2010-33 Proposed Adoption of New Rule 3.220 of the Michigan Court Rules
Proposed new MCR 3.220 would require the trial court judge to set a deadline for arbitration proceedings and approve any extensions of those time periods. Further, the proposed rule would allow arbitrators to issue interim awards during the arbitration proceeding.
SBM Position: View Position

2010-20 Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposed amendment of MCR 6.302 would reinsert a requirement that a court advise a defendant who pleads guilty that the defendant's maximum possible prison sentence may be longer than the maximum possible prison sentence for a particular offense if the defendant falls within the parameters of the habitual offender statute (MCL 769.13). The statute allows a prosecutor to notify the defendant that the prosecutor intends to seek an enhanced sentence after the defendant pleads guilty. Thus, the sentence range given by the court may not take into account any sentence enhancement at the plea hearing.
SBM Position: View Position
Criminal Law Section: View Position

2010-16 Proposed Amendments of Rules 6.302 and 6.610 of the Michigan Court Rules
These proposals were generated following the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, ___ US ___; 130 S Ct 1473; 176 L Ed 2d 284 (2010), in which the Court held that defense counsel is required to inform a defendant about the risk of deportation as a potential consequence of a guilty plea. In that case, the Court held that "when the deportation consequence is truly clear, as it was in this case," counsel must give correct advice. The Court also noted that in "situations in which the deportation consequences of a particular plea are unclear or uncertain, … a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences." Padilla, 130 S Ct 1483.

Proposal A would require a judge to ask a noncitizen defendant and the defendant's lawyer if they have discussed possible risk of deportation as a consequence of a guilty plea. The focus of this inquiry is whether the defendant is a noncitizen, and what the defense counsel has told the defendant. Proposal B would require a judge to give general advice to any defendant (whether or not the defendant is represented by counsel) that a guilty plea by a noncitizen may carry immigration consequences. This alternative would obviate the need to determine the defendant's citizenship status, which the defendant may not know or be willing to divulge.
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee: View Position
Criminal Issues Initiative: View Position

2002-29 Proposed Michigan Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
Michigan Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
SBM Position: View Position 12/4/03 ; View Position 5/31/05