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).
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.
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.
2012-36 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.112 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed rule amendments of MCR 2.112 would provide a means to identify business court cases and the placement of those matters on the business court docket.
2012-35 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 8.111 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 8.111 would clarify that reassignment under a concurrent jurisdiction plan or family court plan is effective on the date of the reassignment, and the successor judge would handle not only the new cases that are filed in that court, but would also preside over any matters then pending or postjudgment matters that arise. A court would be required to submit a local administrative order to the State Court Administrative Office describing the revised caseload distribution when a reassignment occurs.
2012-27 - Proposed Amendments of Rule 8.110 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 8.110 is intended to update the rule to reflect today’s emphasis on collaboration and local sharing of resources, and the revisions would also clarify who is required to fulfill the statutory “chief” probate judge obligations.
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.
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 PDF
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 PDF
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 PDF
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 PDF
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 PDF
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 PDF
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 PDF
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Postion PDF
2010-34 Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.419 of the Michigan Court Rules
Alternative A would revise MCR 6.419 to be similar to the federal corollary of this rule (FR Crim P 29[b]). Under this language, the trial court would be entitled to reserve judgment on a motion for directed verdict. Alternative B would allow a trial court to reconsider its decision to grant a directed verdict. This language was proposed based on the United States Supreme Court decision of Smith v Massachusetts, 543 US 462 (2005).
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2010-32 Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.210 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.210 were submitted to this Court by the Michigan Judges Association after conclusion of its work and input from its Domestic Relations Committee. The proposal would govern the entry of default and default judgment in domestic relations cases and would cover and clarify related procedural issues. While this proposal adds provisions that may be found in Chapter 2 of the Michigan Court Rules, these proposed amendments of MCR 3.210 attempt to clarify procedures to be used in domestic relations cases. The proposed amendment of MCR 3.210 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 it.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
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 PDF
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 PDF
Appellate Practice: View Position PDF
Criminal Law Section: View Position PDF
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 PDF
Criminal Law Section: View Position PDF
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 PDF
2005-11—Proposed Amendments of Canon 4 and Canon 5 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct
The proposal contained in this order seeks to clarify the role a judge may play in fundraising events for law-related and educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations. The proposal would specifically allow a judge to speak, appear, or be a guest or accept an award at a fundraising event of both law-related and educational, charitable, religious, and civic organizations, and must be shielded as much as possible from knowing who has contributed and the amount of contributions.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2005-11 - Proposed Alternative Amendments of the Code of Judicial Conduct
Two alternative proposals are published for comment in this order. The first, Alternative A, combines Canon 4 and Canon 5 so that the obligations imposed with regard to extrajudicial activities are the same for both law-related and nonlaw-related functions. The proposal also clarifies various allowed and prohibited fundraising activities.
The second proposal is modeled loosely on the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct. The most recent iteration of the ABA Model Code splits the existing language of Michigan's Canon 4 through Canon 6 into 15 separate rules. For purposes of the proposed language of Alternative B, however, the separate model rules are combined in the proposed revised text of Michigan's current two Canons, and would retain nearly all the language that currently exists in Canon 4 and Canon 5. But the proposal is similar to the ABA Model Code in that proposed Canon 4 would begin with a description of the underlying foundational requirements for any extrajudicial activities (i.e., participation in the activity must not undermine the judge's independence, integrity, or impartiality) and other general requirements, and then would set out the allowed fundraising and other financial activities in Canon 5.
Either proposal would eliminate the language of Canon 7 that prohibits a judge from accepting a testimonial, and would clarify Canon 2 so that activities allowed under Canon 4 and Canon 5 would not be considered a violation of the principle of use of the prestige of office. Both proposals contain proposed language that is intended to clarify the scope of activities in which a judge may participate, especially if those activities also serve a fundraising purpose. In Alternative A, this language is included at Canon 4D; in Alternative B, this language is included at Canon 5A(3).
SBM Position: View Position PDF
print this page
