ADM File No. 2019-40

Proposed Adoption of Administrative Order No. 2026-X, Proposed Rescission of Administrative Order No. 2012-7, and Proposed Amendments of Rules 2.407 and 8.110 of the Michigan Court Rules

The Court, having given an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing, again seeks public comment regarding a proposal administrative order regarding a judicial officer’s ability to appear remotely. The Court has revised the original proposal and is interested in receiving additional comments on this revised proposal.

On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an adoption of Administrative Order No. 2026-X, rescission of Administrative Order No. 2012-7, and amendments of Rules 2.407 and 8.110 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 page.

[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]

Administrative Order No. 2026-X – Adoption of Administrative Order Regarding a Judicial Officer’s Remote Appearance

In accordance with this administrative order, judicial officers may preside remotely, as provided by the applicable court rules governing the use of videoconferencing, in any proceeding that does not require the judicial officer’s in-person presence. A judicial officer must not preside over their docket from a remote location that is geographically further than either their in-district residential address or 30 miles from the courthouse where the proceeding would take place if in person, unless: (1) the judicial officer is experiencing an emergency or (2) the parties have all agreed to attend a proceeding that is specifically scheduled while the judge is out of the office on vacation or out of the office for a reason stated in MCR 8.110(D)(3)(a)-(e).

Unless the judicial officer is out of the office for an emergency or a reason set forth in MCR 8.110(D)(3)(a)-(e), the judicial officer must also maintain the ability to comply with in-person requests pursuant to MCR 2.407(B)(4) without unreasonable delay or change to a different judicial officer. Any delay that is attributed to the judicial officer’s physical location at the time of a request may be considered unreasonable.

The judicial officer who presides remotely must

(1) be physically located in Michigan,
(2) preside from a location that is free of personal distractions,
(3) preside from a location that the judicial officer reasonably believes to have a reliable internet connection that will support remote proceedings,
(4) have their videoconferencing camera on at all times during the proceeding,
(5) display the flags of the United States and Michigan as provided in MCR 8.115(A), and
(6) wear a black robe if they are a judge or if required by court rules, statute, or their chief judge.

For purposes of this administrative order, the judge may display digital representations of the United States and Michigan flags adjacent to the judge.

A judicial officer’s remote participation is subject to the court’s ability to produce a suitable recording of the proceeding for purposes of preparing a verbatim transcript in accordance with the Michigan Court Rules.

The State Court Administrative Office must report periodically to this Court regarding its assessment of judicial officers presiding remotely. Courts must cooperate with the State Court Administrative Office in monitoring the remote participation of judicial officers in court proceedings.

For purposes of this order:

• “Videoconferencing” means that term as defined in MCR 2.407.
• A “judicial officer” includes judges, district court magistrates, and referees.
• “Emergency” is defined as the judicial officer needing to tend to personal or family health emergencies which last less than five business days.

Rule 2.407 Videoconferencing

(A)-(D) [Unchanged.]

(E) Notwithstanding any other provision in this rule, until further order of the Court, AO No. 2012-7 is suspended.

Rule 8.110 Chief Judge Rule

(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]

(C) Duties and Powers of Chief Judge.

(1)-(2) [Unchanged.]

(3) As director of the administration of the court, a chief judge shall have administrative superintending power and control over the judges of the court and all court personnel with authority and responsibility to:

(a)-(b) [Unchanged.]

(c) determine the hours of the court and the judges; coordinate and determine the number of judges and court personnel required to be present at any one time to perform necessary judicial administrative work of the court, and require their in-person or remote presence to perform that work;

(d)-(i) [Unchanged.]

(4)-(9) [Unchanged.]

(D) [Unchanged.]

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2019-40): Proposed Administrative Order No. 2026-X would clarify when, from where, and how a judicial officer may participate remotely. A related proposed amendment of MCR 2.407 would strike a reference to Administrative Order No. 2012-7 being suspended, and that administrative order would be rescinded. The proposed amendment of MCR 8.110 would authorize chief judges to require a judge’s in-person or remote presence to perform work.

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 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by April 1, 2026 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. 2019-40. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.

ADM File No. 2022-49

Proposed Amendments of Rule 8.120 of the Michigan Court Rules and Rule 5 of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners

On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering amendments of Rule 8.120 of the Michigan Court Rules and Rule 5 of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners. 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 page.

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 8.120 Law Students, and Recent Law Graduates, and Individuals Already Barred; Participation in Legal ServicesAid Clinics, and Programs, Defender Offices, and Legal Training Programs

(A) Legal Aid Clinics; Defender Offices. Effective legal service for each person in Michigan, regardless of that person’s ability to pay, is important to the directly affected person, to our court system, and to the whole citizenry. Law students and recent law graduates, under supervision by a member of the state bar, may staff the following:

(a) public and nonprofit defender offices, and

(b) legal aid clinics that are organized under a city or county bar association or an accredited law school or for the primary purpose of providing free legal services to indigent persons, and.

(c) organized legal services programs funded by the Michigan State Bar Foundation or Legal Services Corporation that provide legal assistance to indigent persons in civil matters.

(B) [Unchanged.]

(C) Eligible IndividualsStudents.

(1) A student in a law school approved by the American Bar Association who has received a passing grade in law school courses and has completed the first year is eligible to participate in a clinic or program listed in subrules (A) and (B) if the student meets the academic and moral standards established by the dean of that school.

(2) AFor the purpose of this rule, a “recent law graduate” is a person who has graduated from an ABA-accredited law school within the last 15 monthsyear.

(D) The student or recent law graduate must certify in writing that they havehe or she has read and areis familiar with the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and the Michigan Court Rules, and shall take an oath which is reasonably equivalent to the Michigan Lawyer’s Oath in requiring at a minimum the promise to: (a) support the Constitution of the United States; (b) support the Constitution of the State of Michigan; (c) maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; (d) never seek to mislead a judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; (e) maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of the client; (f) abstain from all offensive personality; (g) advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause; and(h) in all other respects conduct himself or herself personally and professionally in conformity with the high standards of conduct imposed upon members of the state bar of Michigan.

(ED) Scope; Procedure; Duration; Revocation.

(1) A law student or recent law graduatemember of the legal aid clinic, in representing an indigent person, is authorized to advise the person and to negotiate and appear on the person’s behalf in all Michigan courts except the Supreme Court. Except as otherwise provided in this rule, the indigent person that will be assisted by the student or graduate must consent in writing to the representation. In a situation in which a law student provides short-term, limited-scope legal advice by telephone in the context of a clinical program intended to assist indigent persons offered as part of a law school curriculum, the clinic patron shall be informed that:

(a) the advice provided may be rendered by a law student;, and

(b) [Unchanged.]

(2) Representation by a law student or recent law graduate must be conducted under the supervision of a state bar member. Supervision by a state bar member includes the duty to examine and sign all pleadings filed. It does not require the state bar member to be present:

(a) while a law student or recent law graduate is advising an indigent person or negotiating on the person’s behalf;, or

(b) during a courtroom appearance of a law student or recent law graduate, except

(i)-(ii) [Unchanged.]

The supervising attorney shall assume all personal professional responsibility for the student’s or recent law graduate’s work, and should consider purchasing professional liability insurance to cover the practice of such student or graduate.

(3) A law student or recent law graduate may not appear in a case in a Michigan court without the approval of the judge or a majority of the panel of judges to which the case is assigned. If the judge or a majority of the panel grants approval, the judge or a majority of the panel may suspend the proceedings at any stage if the judge or a majority of the panel determines that the representation by the law student or graduate:

(a) is professionally inadequate;, and

(b) [Unchanged.]

In the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, a request for a law student or recent law graduate to appear at oral argument must be submitted by motion to the Court of Appeals panel that will hear the case or to the Supreme Court Clerk. The Court of Appeals panel or Supreme Court may deny the request or establish restrictions or other parameters for the representation on a case-by-case basis.

(4) A law student or recent law graduate serving in a prosecutor’s, county corporation counsel’s, city attorney’s, Attorney Grievance Commission’s, or Attorney General’s program may be authorized to perform comparable functions and duties assigned by the prosecuting attorney, county attorney, city attorney, Attorney Grievance Commission attorney, or Attorney General, except that:

(a) the law student or recent law graduate is subject to the conditions and restrictions of this rule; and

(b) the law student or recent law graduate may not be appointed as an assistant prosecutor, assistant corporation counsel, assistant city attorney, assistant Attorney Grievance Commission attorney, or assistant Attorney General.

Board of Law Examiners Rule 5. Admission Without Examination.

(A) [Unchanged.]

(B) An applicant for admission without examination must

(1)-(4) [Unchanged.]

(5) have, after being licensed and for 3 of the 5 years preceding the application,

(a) actively practiced law as a principal business or occupation in a jurisdiction where admitted (the practice of law under a special certificate pursuant to Rule 5[F] or as a special legal consultant pursuant to Rule 5[G] does not qualify as the practice of law required by this rule);

(b)-(c) [Unchanged.]

The Board may, for good cause, increase the 5-year period. Active duty in the United States armed forces not satisfying Rule 5(B)(5)(c) may be excluded when computing the 5-year period.

(6) [Unchanged.]

(C)-(E) [Unchanged.]

(F) An attorney (1) [Unchanged.]

(2) practicing law in an institutional setting, e.g., counsel to a corporation or instructor in a law school; or,

(3) employed by a public or nonprofit defender office, legal aid clinic organized under a city or county bar association, legal aid clinic with a primary purpose of providing free legal services to indigent persons, legal services program funded by the Michigan State Bar Foundation or the Legal Services Corporation,

may apply to the Board for a special certificate of qualification to practice law. The applicant must satisfy Rule 5(B)(1)-(3), and comply with Rule 5(C). The Board may then issue the special certificate, which will entitle the attorney to continue current employment if the attorney becomes an active member of the State Bar. The special certificate permits attorneys teaching or supervising law students in a clinical program to represent the clients of that clinical program. If the attorney leaves the current employment, the special certificate automatically expires; if the attorney’s new employment is also institutional, the attorney may reapply for another special certificate.

(G) [Unchanged.]

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-49): The proposed amendment of MCR 8.120 would allow law students and recent law graduates to: (1) staff certain legal programs that provide assistance to indigent persons in civil matters under the supervision by a member of the state bar, and (2) appear on behalf of indigent persons in all Michigan courts. The proposal would also expand the definition of a “recent law graduate” from one year to 15 months. The proposed amendment of BLE Rule 5 would expand the qualifications for a special certificate of qualification to practice law.

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 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by April 1, 2026 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. 2022-49. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.

ADM File No. 2024-08

Proposed Amendment of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 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 page.

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.]

Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Office Impartially and Diligently.

The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities. Judicial duties include all the duties of office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:

A. Adjudicative Responsibilities:

(1)-(11) [Unchanged.]

(12) A judge must not knowingly allowshould prohibit broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking of photographs in or out of the courtroom during sessions of court or recesses between sessions except as provided herein or as authorized by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., AO 1989-1. A presiding judge may specifically allow broadcasting, televising, recording, or photography via portable electronic device in their courtroom. MCR 8.115(C). When there are no objections, a judge may, for example, allow photography or recording to commemorate celebratory events such as adoption day proceedings, treatment court graduations, and swearing-in ceremonies.

(13) -(15) [Unchanged.]

B.-D. [Unchanged.]

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2024-08): The proposed amendment of Canon 3 would clarify a judge’s responsibility to not knowingly allow unauthorized broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking of photographs in or out of the courtroom during sessions of court or recesses between sessions.

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 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by April 1, 2026 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. 2024-08. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.

ADM File No. 2024-19

Proposed Amendments of Rules 9.108 and 9.110 of the Michigan Court Rules

On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering amendments of Rules 9.108 and 9.110 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 page.

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 9.108 Attorney Grievance Commission

(A) [Unchanged.]

(B) Composition. The commission consists of 3 laypersons and 6 attorneys appointed by the Supreme Court. The members serve 3-year terms. Unless initially appointed to fill a mid-term vacancy, a member may serve up to 2 full terms. A member appointed to fill a mid-term vacancy shall serve the remainder of that term and may be reappointed tomay not serve up tomore than 2 full terms.

(C) Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. The Supreme Court shall designate from among the members of the commission a chairperson and a vice-chairperson who shall serve 1-year terms in those offices. The commencement and termination dates for the 1-year terms shall coincide appropriately with the 3-year membership terms of those officers and the other commission members. The Supreme Court may reappoint these officers for additional terms and may remove these officers prior to the expiration of a term. An officer appointed to fill a mid-term vacancy shall serve the remainder of that term and may be reappointed to serve up to 2 more full terms.

(D)-(E) [Unchanged.]

Rule 9.110 Attorney Discipline Board

(A) [Unchanged.]

(B) Composition. The board consists of 6 attorneys and 3 laypersons appointed by the Supreme Court. The members serve 3-year terms. Unless initially appointed to fill a mid-term vacancy, a member may serve up to 2 full terms. A member appointed to fill a mid-term vacancy shall serve the remainder of that term and may be reappointed tomay not serve up tomore than 2 full terms.

(C) Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. The Supreme Court shall designate from among the members of the board a chairperson and a vice-chairperson who shall serve 1-year terms in those offices. The commencement and termination dates of the 1-year terms shall coincide appropriately with the 3-year board terms of those officers and the other board members. The Supreme Court may reappoint these officers for additional terms and may remove an officer prior to the expiration of a term. An officer appointed to fill a midterm vacancy shall serve the remainder of that term and may be reappointed to serve two full terms.

(D)-(E) [Unchanged.]

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2024-19): The proposed amendments of MCR 9.108 and 9.110 would address mid-term member vacancies and would eliminate the 2-full term officer limit for the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Attorney Discipline Board.

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 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by April 1, 2026 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. 2024-19. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.

ADM File No. 2025-01

Appointments to the Commission on Fairness and Public Trust in the Michigan Judiciary

On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2022-1, the following individuals are reappointed to serve on the Commission on Fairness and Public Trust in the Michigan Judiciary for terms commencing on January 1, 2026, and expiring on December 31, 2028:

• Honorable Shauna Dunnings (on behalf of the Michigan Association of Probate Judges)
• Honorable Austin Garrett (on behalf of the Association of Black Judges of Michigan)
• Siham Awada Jaafar (Community Member)
• David W. Jones (on behalf of the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission)
• Honorable Sima Patel (on behalf of the Michigan Court of Appeals)
• Louisa Wills (Community Member)

In addition, the following individuals, or their designees, continue to serve by virtue of their role within their organization:

• Justice Elizabeth Welch (Supreme Court Justice)
• Elizabeth Rios-Jones (State Court Administrator Designee)
• Jennifer Bentley (Michigan State Bar Foundation Director)
• Peter Cunningham (State Bar of Michigan Director)

Further, Justice Elizabeth Welch and Honorable Austin Garrett are reappointed to serve as co-chairs for terms commencing on January 1, 2026, and expiring on December 31, 2027.

ADM File No. 2025-01

Appointments to the Commission on Well-Being in the Law

On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2023- 1, the following members are reappointed to serve on the Commission on Well-Being in the Law for full terms commencing on January 1, 2026 and expiring on December 31, 2028:

• Cynthia Bullington (on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission)
• Jeff Getting (on behalf of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan)
• Honorable Andrew Griffin (on behalf of the Michigan Judges Association)
• Tierney Hoffman (on behalf of Wayne State University Law School)
• Honorable Lisa Martin (on behalf of the Association of Black Judges of Michigan)
• Marissa Navarro (Law Student)
• Katharine Smith (Attorney, Licensed less than five years)

In addition, the following individual is appointed to a first full term commencing on January 1, 2026 and expiring on December 31, 2028:

• Ieisha Humphrey (on behalf of Michigan State University College of Law)

Additionally, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2023-1, the following individuals, or their designees, will serve by virtue of their role within their organization:

• Justice Kyra H. Bolden (Michigan Supreme Court Justice)
• Elizabeth Rios-Jones (State Court Administrator designee)
• Peter Cunningham (Executive Director, State Bar of Michigan)
• Molly Ranns (Director, State Bar of Michigan Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program)

Further, Justice Kyra H. Bolden is reappointed to serve as chair, and Molly Ranns is reappointed to serve as vice-chair of the Commission for terms commencing on January 1, 2026, and expiring on December 31, 2027.

ADM File No. 2025-01

Appointments to the Foreign Language Board of Review

On order of the Court, pursuant to MCR 8.127(A), Amy Etzel (Court Administrator) is reappointed to serve on the Foreign Language Board of Review for a first full term commencing on January 1, 2026 and expiring on December 31, 2028.

In addition, the following members are appointed to serve on the Foreign Language Board of Review for first full terms commencing on January 1, 2026 and expiring on December 31, 2028:

• Dr. Ahmed Elsayed (Certified Interpreter)
• Honorable Sean B. Perkins (District Court Judge)

ADM File No. 2025-01

Appointments to the Judicial Education Board

On order of the Court, pursuant to Mich CJE R 3, the following members are reappointed to serve on the Judicial Education Board for full terms commencing on January 1, 2026 and expiring on December 31, 2029:

• Honorable Kathleen M. Brickley (Circuit Court Judge)
• Honorable William G. Kelly (Retired Judge)
• Magistrate Gerald J. Ladwig (Quasi-Judicial Officer)
• Honorable Cynthia M. Ward (District Court Judge)

Additionally, Honorable Cylenthia LaToye Miller (Circuit Court Judge) is appointed to serve on the Judicial Education Board for a first full term commencing on January 1, 2026 and expiring on December 31, 2029.

Further, Honorable Christopher M. Murray is reappointed to serve as chair and Honorable Kathleen M. Brickley is reappointed to serve as vice-chair of the Judicial Education Board for terms commencing on January 1, 2026 and expiring on December 31, 2026.

ADM File No. 2025-01

Appointments to the Justice For All Commission

On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2021- 1, the following members are reappointed to serve on the Justice for All Commission for full terms commencing on January 1, 2026, and expiring on December 31, 2028:

• James Bacarella (on behalf of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan)
• Ashley Lowe (on behalf of the Legal Services Association of Michigan)

In addition, Honorable Nicole N. Goodson (on behalf of the Association of Black Judges of Michigan) is appointed to serve on the Commission for a first full term commencing January 1, 2026, and expiring on December 31, 2028.

In addition, the following individuals, or their designees, will serve on the Commission by virtue of their role within their organization:

• Justice Brian K. Zahra (Michigan Supreme Court)
• Tom Boyd (State Court Administrator)
• Jennifer Bentley (Executive Director, Michigan State Bar Foundation)
• Peter Cunningham (Executive Director, State Bar of Michigan)
• Nora Ryan (Executive Director, Michigan Legal Help)
• Kristen Staley (Executive Director, Michigan Indigent Defense Commission)

Further, Justice Brian K. Zahra is reappointed to serve as chair, and Nora Ryan is reappointed to serve as vice-chair of the Commission for terms commencing on January 1, 2026, and expiring December 31, 2027.

ADM File No. 2025-37

Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.312 of the Michigan Court Rules

On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 7.312 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 page.

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 7.312 Briefs, Responses to Adverse Amicus Briefs, and Appendixes in Calendar Cases and Cases Argued on the Application

(A)-(D) [Unchanged.]

(E) Time for Filing. Unless the Court directs a different time for filing,

(1) the appellant’s brief and appendixes, if any, are due

(a) within 56 days of the order granting the application for leave to appeal, or within 56 days of an order appointing counsel for representation in this Court or of a ruling that the defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel, or

(b) within 42 days of the order directing the clerk to schedule oral argument on the application, or within 42 days of an order appointing counsel for representation in this Court or of a ruling that the defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel;

(2)-(4) [Unchanged.]

(F)-(K) [Unchanged.]

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2025-37): The proposed amendment of MCR7.312 would establish rule-based briefing deadlines in leave granted and MOAA cases where it appears necessary to appoint counsel for the indigent defendant.

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 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by April 1, 2026 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. 2025-37. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.