ADM File No. 2024-04
Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.981 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 3.981 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 3.981 Minor Personal Prot3ection Orders; Issuance; Modification; Rescission; Appeal
Procedure for the issuance, dismissal, modification, or rescission of minor personal protection orders is governed by subchapter 3.700. Procedure in appeals related to minor personal protection orders is governed by MCR 3.709 and MCR 3.993. The court must advise the respondent of their appellate rights under MCR 3.937 following the issuance of any order appealable by right, and in those cases, appointment of appellate counsel is controlled by MCR 3.993(D)(5).
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2024-04): The proposed amendment of MCR 3.981 would require the court to advise minor PPO respondents of their right to appeal following the issuance of an order that is appealable by right and would clarify that appointment of appellate counsel in these cases is controlled by MCR 3.993(D)(5).
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 July 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. 2024-04. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2026-01
Appointment to the Justice For All Commission
On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2021-1, the Honorable Michelle M. Rick (on behalf of the State Planning Body) is appointed to the Justice For All Commission for a partial term commencing immediately and expiring on December 31, 2028.
ADM File No. 2024-32
Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.410 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 2.410 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 2.410 Alternative Dispute Resolution
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Attendance at ADR Proceedings. (1) [Unchanged.]
(2) Presence of Parties. The court may direct that the parties to the action, agents of parties, representatives of lienholders, representatives of insurance carriers, or other persons:
(a)-(b) [Unchanged.]
The court’s order may specify whether the availability is to be in person, or by telephone, or, in accordance with MCR 2.407, by videoconferencing technology.
(3) [Unchanged.]
(E)-(F) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2024-32): The proposed amendment of MCR 2.410 would explicitly allow ADR proceedings to be conducted by videoconferencing technology if such participation is appropriate under MCR 2.407.
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 July 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. 2024-32. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2025-09
Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.610 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 6.610 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 6.610 Criminal Procedure Generally
(A)-(F) [Unchanged.]
(G) Sentencing.
(1) If the court has ordered that a presentence report be prepared, on request, the probation officer must give the defendant’s attorney notice and a reasonable opportunity to attend the presentence interview.
(1)-(4) [Renumbered (2)-(5) but otherwise unchanged.]
(H)-(I) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2025-09): The proposed amendment of MCR 6.610 would clarify that defense counsel must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to attend, as part of a court-ordered presentence investigation, any presentence interview of their client.
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 July 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. 2025-09. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2025-23
Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.210 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 7.210 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 7.210 Record on Appeal
(A) [Unchanged.]
(B) Transcript.
(1) Appellant’s Duties; Orders; Stipulations. (a) [Unchanged.]
(b) In an appeal from probate court in an estate or trust proceeding, an adult or minor guardianship proceeding under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code, or a proceeding under the Mental Health Code, or a domestic relations action involving a postjudgment order described in MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii) or (iv), only that portion of the transcript concerning the order appealed from need be filed. The appellee may file additional portions of the transcript.
(c)-(e) [Unchanged.]
(2)-(3) [Unchanged.]
(C)-(J) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2025-23): The proposed amendment of MCR 7.210 would explicitly exempt full transcripts for appeals from certain domestic relations actions.
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 July 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. 2025-23. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2026-01
Appointments to the Court Reporting and Recording Board of Review
On order of the Court, pursuant to MCR 8.108(G)(2)(b), Amanda J. Ingraham (attorney) is appointed to the Court Reporting and Recording Board of Review for a first full term commencing on April 1, 2026, and expiring on March 31, 2030.
It is further ordered, pursuant to MCR 8.108(G)(2)(b), the Honorable Anica Letica (Court of Appeals judge) is reappointed to the Court Reporting and Recording Board of Review for a second full term commencing on April 1, 2026, and expiring on March 31, 2030.
ADM File No. 2026-01
Appointments to the Commission on Well-Being in the Law
On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2023- 01, Samantha J. Orvis (attorney, large firm) is appointed to the Commission on Well-Being in the Law for a partial term commencing immediately and expiring on December 31, 2028.
It is further ordered, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2023- 01, Shannon Topp (on behalf of the Michigan Court Administrators Association) is reappointed to the Commission on Well-Being in the Law for a first full term commencing immediately and expiring on December 31, 2028.
ADM File No. 2026-01
Appointment of Chief Judges Pro Tempore of Michigan Courts
On order of the Court, pursuant to MCR 8.110, the following judges are appointed to serve in the role of chief judge pro tempore of the courts indicated for terms commencing immediately and expiring on December 31, 2027.
Honorable Jason E. Bitzer of the 71B District Court is appointed to serve as chief judge pro tempore of the 52nd Circuit Court, Huron County Probate Court, and 73B District Court.
Honorable Cheryl L. Hill of the Marquette County Probate Court is appointed to serve as chief judge pro tempore of the 11th Circuit Court, Alger/Schoolcraft Probate District 5, Luce/Mackinac Probate District 6, 92nd District Court, and 93rd District Court.
Nothing in this order affects the judge’s responsibility to serve in the court in which they were elected.