State Bar of Michigan
home member area contact us


public policy resource center




 print this page


for members
SBM general information

member directory

admissions, ethics, and
   regulation


diversity & inclusion

justice initiatives

member services

practice management
   resource center


public policy resource
   center


publications and
   advertising


research and links

sections & committees


ethics for members
ethics developments
ethics opinions
TAON (trust accounts)


from the courts
opinion searching
virtual court


for the public
public resources
media resources


giving opportunities
a lawyer helps
access to justice
   campaign

State Bar Positions:
Rule Amendments & Administrative Orders

Rule Amendments | Administrative Orders | Proposed Rule Amendments | Other

 

Rule Amendments (in order of effective date)

    Amendments Effective May 1, 2014

      2013-28 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.510 of the Michigan Court Rules
      The proposed amendments of MCR 2.510 would allow courts to authorize prospective jurors to complete and return questionnaires electronically, and would allow courts to create and maintain them electronically (i.e., in any medium authorized by court rules pursuant to MCR 1.109). The proposed change also would delete language in MCR 2.501(D) to clarify that the chief judge is responsible for initiation of the court’s policies for summoning prospective jurors.
      SBM Position: View Position PDF

      2013-10 – Proposed Amendments of Rules 2.107 and 2.117 of the Michigan Court Rules
      The proposed amendment of MCR 2.107 would provide clarification by adding the term “order” so that after either a final judgment or order has entered, papers should be served on the party after the time for appeal has passed. The proposed amendment of MCR 2.117 would clarify that when an attorney appears in an action by filing or defending a postjudgment motion, the duration of the attorney’s appearance would be the same as that of an attorney filing or defending the original pleadings.
      SBM Position: View Position PDF
      Family Law Section Position: View Position PDF

      2012-30 - Proposed Amendments of Rule 2.621 and Rule 2.622 of the Michigan Court Rule
      s
      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 PDF
      Family Law Section Position: View Position PDF

    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 PDF

    Amendments Effective January 1, 2014

    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 PDF

    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 PDF

      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 PositionPDF

      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 PositionPDF

      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 PositionPDF

      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 PositionPDF

      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 PDF

      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 PDF

      2008-21 – Amendment of Rule 3.932 of the Michigan Court Rules
      The amendments require the prosecutor’s consent to placing a juvenile on the consent calendar and prohibit the court from considering on the consent calendar an offense that includes an “assaultive crime” as defined in the Juvenile Diversion Act.

      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 PDF
      SBM Position: View Position PDF

    Amendments Effective May 1, 2013

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

    2014-18 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.001 of the Michigan Court Rules
    The proposed 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 PDF
    Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position PDF

    2014-08 - Amendment of MCR 3.221
    The amendments of MCR 3.221 strike the term “magistrate” from subsections (C) and (I) to clarify the rule because there is no statutory authority for district court magistrates to conduct bond review hearings on support and parenting time enforcement act bench warrants.
    SBM Position: View Position PDF

    2014-06 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.004 of the Michigan Court Rules
    The proposed revisions of MCR 2.004 would change the service provisions with regard to an inmate's participation in a hearing or conference so that service would be required on MDOC's Central Records Section, instead of service on individual wardens or supervisors at the MDOC facilities; the proposed changes also would allow an inmate's participation by video or videoconferencing.
    SBM Position: View Position PDF
    Family Law Section Position: View Position PDF
    Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position PDF

    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 PDF

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

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

    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 PDF

    2013-21 - Amendments of Rules 6.112 and 6.113 of the Michigan Court Rules
    These amendments clarify how a prosecutor's notice of enhanced sentence required under MCL 769.13(1) is to be provided in courts in which arraignment has been eliminated under MCR 6.113(E).
    SBM Position: View Position PDF
    Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position PDF

    2013-19 - Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.602
    The proposed changes of MCR 3.602 would 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 PDF

    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 PDF
    Civil Procedure & Courts Committee: View Position PDF
    Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee: View PositionPDF
    Domestic Violence Committee: View Position PDF
    Committee on Justice Initiatives: View Position PDF
    General Practice Section: View Position PDF

    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 PDF
    Civil Procedure & Courts Committee: View Position PDF
    Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee: View PositionPDF
    Domestic Violence Committee: View Position PDF
    Committee on Justice Initiatives: View Position PDF
    General Practice Section: View Position PDF

    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 PDF
    Civil Procedure & Courts Committee: View Position PDF
    Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee: View PositionPDF
    Domestic Violence Committee: View Position PDF
    Committee on Justice Initiatives: View Position PDF
    General Practice Section: View Position PDF

    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 PDF

    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 PDF

    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 PDF
    Family Law Section Position: View Position PDF
    Domestic Violence Committee Position: View Position PDF

    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 PDF

    2013-09 - Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.216
    The proposed amendment of MCR 3.216 would clarify that distribution of property is subject to domestic relations mediation.
    SBM Position: View Position PDF
    Family Law Section Position: View Position PDF

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

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

    2013-02 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.800, 3.801, 3.802, 3.804, 3.807, 5.109, 5..401, 5.402, and 5.404
    This proposal would incorporate provisions of the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act and the Indian Child Welfare Act. The proposal is designed to make the rules reflect a more integrated approach to addressing issues specific to Indian children.

    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 Rule
    s
    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 PDF

    2012-26 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 8.111 of the Michigan Court Rules
    This proposal would clarify that the reassignment requirement applies regardless whether the court is acting in the capacity of a trial court or as an appellate court, such as a circuit court considering an appeal of a district court or probate court determination.
    SBM Position: View Position PDF

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

    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 PDF

    2012-03 - Amendment of MCR 1.111
    The amendments of MCR 1.111 make technical revisions and insert an interim review process for cases in which a court denies a request for an interpreter or orders reimbursement of interpretation costs. These revisions are adopted with immediate effect, but pending public comment and a future public hearing.

    2012-02 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 2.302
    These two proposals offer proposed amendments of MCR 2.302 regarding discovery-only depositions. The proposed amendments in Alternative A would clarify that discovery-only depositions may be taken only by stipulation or court order. The amendment would also require that the stipulation or order explain how the costs of this type of deposition are to be allocated. These proposed amendments were submitted by the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly. The proposed amendments in Alternative B would allow any party to schedule a discovery-only deposition without the need to obtain stipulation of the other party or parties or approval of the court.
    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

    2010-32 - 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 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

Declined to Adopt and File Closed

    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 PDF

    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 PDF
    Criminal Law Section: View Position
    PDF

    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 PDF
    Criminal Issues Initiative: View Position
    PDF

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

     

     

 

follow us
Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on LinkedIn Follow Us on Twitter Follow the SBM Blog

 

©Copyright 2014

website links
Contact Us
Site Map
Website Privacy Statement PDF
Staff Links

SBM on the Mapcontact information
State Bar of Michigan
306 Townsend St
Lansing, MI 48933-2012
Phone: (517) 346-6300
Toll Free: (800) 968-1442
Fax: (517) 482-6248