ADM File No. 2022-03
Proposed Amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings webpage. Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 1.109 Court Records Defined; Document Defined; Filing Standards; Signatures; Electronic Filing and Service; Access
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Filing Standards.
(1) Form and Captions of Documents.
(a) [Unchanged.]
(b) The first part of every document must contain a caption stating:
(i)-(vi) [Unchanged.]
Parties and attorneys may also include any personal pronouns in the name section of the caption, and courts are required to use those personal pronouns when referring to or identifying the party or attorney, either verbally or in writing. Nothing in this subrule prohibits the court from using the individual’s name or other respectful means of addressing the individual if doing so will help ensure a clear record.
(c)-(f) [Unchanged.]
(2)-(10) [Unchanged.]
(E)-(H) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-03): The proposed amendment of MCR 1.109(D)(1)(b) would allow attorneys to provide personal pronouns in document captions and require courts to use those personal pronouns when addressing the party or attorney, either verbally or in writing, unless doing so would result in an unclear record. The Court is interested in receiving comments addressing the constitutional implications of this proposal.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.109. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by May 1, 2023, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-03. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
Zahra and Viviano, JJ., would decline to publish the proposed amendments for comment.
ADM File No. 2022-16
Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.211 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering amendments of Rule 7.211 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings webpage. Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 7.211 Motions in Court of Appeals
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) Special Motions. If the record on appeal has not been sent to the Court of Appeals, except as provided in subrule (C)(6), the party making a special motion shall request the clerk of the trial court or tribunal to send the record to the Court of Appeals. A copy of the request must be filed with the motion.
(1)-(6) [Unchanged.]
(7) Confession of Error by Prosecutor. In a criminal case, if the prosecutor concurs in the relief requested by the defendant, the prosecutor shall file a confession of error so indicating, which mustmay state reasons why concurrence in the relief requested is appropriate. The confession of error shall be submitted to the courtone judge pursuant to MCR 7.211(E)(1). If the courtjudge approves the confession of error, the courtjudge shall enter an order or opinion granting the relief and state the reason(s) for the approval. If the courtjudge rejects the confession of error, the court must state the reason(s) for the rejection, and the case shall be submitted for decision through the ordinary processes of the court, and the confession of error shall be submitted to the panel assigned to decide the case.
(8)-(9) [Unchanged.]
(D)-(E) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-16): The proposed amendment of MCR 7.211(C)(7) would modify the Court of Appeals process for handling confessions of error.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 7.211. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by May 1, 2023, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-16. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2022-13
Proposed Amendment of Rule 9.123 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering amendments of Rule 9.123 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings webpage. Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 9.123 Eligibility for Reinstatement
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Petition for Reinstatement; Filing Limitations.
(1)-(2) [Unchanged.]
(3) An attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked or suspended because of conviction of a felony for which a term of incarceration was imposed may not file a petition for reinstatement until six months after completion of the sentence, including any period of parole.
(4) [Unchanged.]
(E) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-13): The proposed amendment of MCR 9.123(D)(3) would clarify that a disbarred attorney who was sentenced to incarceration following a felony conviction and who wants to be reinstated to the bar must wait until six months after completing the sentence.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 9.123. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by May 1, 2023, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-13. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2021-30
Proposed Amendments of Rules 9.220, 9.221, 9.223, 9.232, and 9.261 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering amendments of Rules 9.220, 9.221, 9.223, 9.232, and 9.261 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings webpage. Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 9.220 Preliminary Investigation
(A) [Unchanged.]
(B) Confidentiality. A request for investigation shall be kept confidential as provided in MCR 9.261(B).
(CB) Investigation. Upon receiving a request for investigation that is not clearly unfounded or frivolous, subject to any limitation imposed by MCR 9.261, the commission shall direct that an investigation be conducted to determine whether a complaint should be filed and a hearing held.
(C)-(E) [Relettered (D)-(F) but otherwise unchanged.]
Rule 9.221 Evidence
(A)-(D) [Unchanged.]
(E) Cooperation With Investigation. A judge, clerk, court employee, member of the bar, or other officer of a court must comply with a reasonable request made by the commission in its investigation, including a request to keep the investigation, or any part of it, confidential. Failure to cooperate may be considered judicial misconduct or attorney misconduct. No court may charge the Judicial Tenure Commission for copying costs or certification costs, whether under MCL 600.2546 or otherwise, unless the Michigan Supreme Court specifically so authorizes.
Rule 9.223 Conclusion of Investigation; Notice
(A) [Unchanged.]
(B) Notice to Grievant and Respondent.
(1) On final disposition under subrule (A)(1), if the commission has not conducted any investigation other than interviewing the grievant, grievant’s attorney, or the State Court Administrative Office, the commission shall provide written notice to the grievant that the matter has been resolved without the filing of a complaint. The commission may provide notice of the request for investigation and the dismissal to the respondent only if the commission has not determined that the identity of the grievant shall be kept confidential under MCR 9.261.
(2) Before taking action under subrule (A)(2)-(5), the commission must first have given written notice to the respondent of the nature of the allegations in the request for investigation and afforded the respondent a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing, pursuant to MCR 9.221(B), MCR 9.222(A), or both. Where the commission has determined that the grievant’s identity should be kept confidential under MCR 9.261 and the grievant’s identity has not already been revealed to the respondent, the commission shall continue to make reasonable efforts to keep the grievant’s identity confidential to the extent consistent with taking the selected action.
(C) [Unchanged.]
Rule 9.232 Discovery
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Discovery shall not include the request for investigation or the identity of a grievant that the commission has determined to keep confidential under MCR 9.261 and who has not been revealed during the investigation, unless the request for investigation contains exculpatory material or the grievant is a witness in the hearing.
Rule 9.261 Confidentiality; Disclosure
(A) [Unchanged.]
(B) Before Filing a Complaint.
(1) A grievant may request that his or her identity be kept confidential, including from the respondent, and the commission shall determine whether to grant the request. Confidentiality does not extend to communications under subrule (G).
(a) If the commission grants the grievant’s request for confidentiality, the request for investigation shall not be disclosed to the respondent or other persons, either during or at the conclusion of the investigation except as necessary to conduct the investigation, unless either
(i) the grievant waives the confidentiality that the commission granted, or
(ii) the commission has filed a public complaint against the respondent, and
(A) disclosure of the grievance is necessary to comply with MCR 9.232(A)(1)(b);
(B) the grievant is a witness in the proceeding and the request for investigation is material to the grievant’s testimony, or
(C) as otherwise necessary to protect the respondent’s due process interests at the hearing.
(b) If the commission denies the grievant’s request for confidentiality, the request for investigation will be kept confidential as required by this rule. The commission shall return the request for investigation to the grievant without taking other action, unless the grievant withdraws the request for confidentiality.
(21) [Renumbered but otherwise unchanged.]
(32) The commission may at any time make public statements as to matters pending before it on its determination by a majority vote that it is in the public interest to do so, limited to statements
(a)-(c) [Unchanged.]
Any statements made under this subrule shall not identify a grievant who has been granted confidentiality under this rule.
(C)-(K) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2021-30): The proposed amendments of MCR 9.220, 9.221, 9.223, 9.232, and 9.261 would help protect the confidentiality of a grievant who submits a request for investigation to the Judicial Tenure Commission.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 9.220, 9.221, 9.223, 9.232, and 9.261. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by May 1, 2023, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2021-30. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2017-28
Retention of the 4/1/22 Amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules, With Further Amendments as Indicated
By order dated Dec. 6, 2021, the Court adopted amendments of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules, effective April 1, 2022. Notice and opportunity for public comment having been provided, effective immediately, the amendment of Rule 1.109 is retained, with further amendment appearing in underlining and/or strike-through below.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 1.109 Court Records Defined; Document Defined; Filing Standards; Signatures; Electronic Filing and Service; Access
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Filing Standards.
(1)-(8) [Unchanged.]
(9) Personal Identifying Information.
(a) [Unchanged.]
(b) Filing, Accessing, and Serving Personal Identifying Information.
(i)-(iv) [Unchanged.]
(v) Consent.
(A) [Unchanged.]
(B) The State Court Administrative Office will maintain a list of authorized individuals who are permittedmay have access to a party’s date of birth contained in a court record for purposes of verifying the identity of that particular person without the need to present a stipulation to the court. To be placed on this list, these individuals must conform to the following procedures:
(1) In a written document, identify the entity for which they work and provide assurance to the State Court Administrative Office that each time they seek verification of a party’s date of birth, it will be in the course of their work and with that person’s consent. The consent mustmay be retained in the possession of the authorized individual, the entity for whom the individual works, the person or organization seeking the information about the person, or someone acting on behalf of that person or organization. Such assurance may be satisfied by a letter from the entity for which the individual works or other document establishing authorization. The assurance required under this provision shall be updated at least every six months, beginning from the date of the original submission. The update mustmay be provided by the individual who seeks access to a person’s date of birth or by the entity that authorizes the individual to operate on its behalf in accessing the information.
(2) Submit proof of their employer’s or hiring entity’s current professional liability insurance in effect during the period when an authorized individual will be seeking date of birth information from a court. Failure to do so will result in the individual being removed from the list or in the individual not being placed on the list. The information provided in support of this provision shall be nonpublic. The proof of insurance required under this provision shall be updated upon the expiration or termination of the insurance policyannually.
(3) Courts must verify the identity of anyone who claims to be an authorized individual by ensuring the name on the individual’s state-issued identification matches the name in SCAO’s authorized user list. Courts and the State Court Administrative Office may create secure, individualized accounts that allow authorized individuals to access a party’s date of birth electronically. A court mustmay issue a public register of actions or other public document that includes a party’s date of birth to an authorized individual.
(vi)-(vii) [Unchanged.]
(c)-(e) [Unchanged.]
(10) [Unchanged.]
(E)-(H) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2017-28): The amendments of MCR 1.109(D)(9)(B) clarify some aspects of the process for providing authorized individuals access to a party’s date of birth for purposes of identity verification.