ADM File No. 2022-19
1.5, 1.15, and 1.15A, and Proposed Additions of Rules 1.15B and 1.15C of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
To read this file, visit perma.cc/4LZP-D7BH
ADM File No. 2024-30 ADM File No. 2024-39
Amendment of Rule 7.306 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendment of Rule 7.306 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective September 1, 2026.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 7.306 Original Proceedings
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) The following actions must be initiated only in the Supreme Court as an original proceeding and in accordance with this rule:
(1)-(2) [Unchanged.]
For any filing deadlines expressed in terms of hours, MCR 1.109(G)(5)(b) does not apply.
(D) What to File. Service provided under this subrule must be verified by the clerk. To initiate an original proceeding, a plaintiff must file with the clerk all of the following:
(1)-(2) [Unchanged.]
(3) Proof that the complaint and brief were served on the defendant, and
(a)-(b) [Unchanged.]
(c) for purposes of a complaint filed under MCL 168.46, it must also include a date and time stamped copy of the board of state canvasser’s certification of the completed recount, and service of a copy of the complaint and brief shall be made on the defendant(s) and all of the following persons if not named as a defendant:
(i)-(iv) [Unchanged.]
A complaint filed under MCL 168.46 must be filed with the Court within 24 hours after the board of state canvassers’sgovernor’s certification of the completed recount or bybut no later than 8:00 a.m. on the day before the electors of President and Vice President are required to convene pursuant to MCL 168.47, whichever is earlier.
(d) for purposes of a complaint filed under MCL 168.845a, it must also include a date and time stamped copy of the certification or determination of the presidential election results, and service of a copy of the complaint and brief shall be made on the defendant(s) and all of the following persons if not named as a defendant:
(i)-(iv) [Unchanged.]
A complaint filed under MCL 168.845a must be filed with the Court within 48 hours after the certification or determination of the results of a presidential election and must name the board of state canvassers as a defendant.
(4) [Unchanged.]
Copies of relevant documents, record evidence, or supporting affidavits may be attached as exhibits to the complaint.
(E)-(F) [Unchanged.]
(G) Reply Brief. 1 signed copy of a reply brief may be filed as provided in MCR 7.305(E). In an action filed under Const 1963, art 4, § 6(19), a reply brief may be filed within 3 days after service of the answer and supporting brief, unless the Court directs otherwise. In an action filed under MCL 168.845a, a reply brief may be filed within 24 hours1 day after service of the answer and supporting brief, unless the Court directs otherwise. A plaintiff may not file a reply brief in an action for judicial review under MCL 168.46.
(H)-(L) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File Nos. 2024-30 and 2024-39): The amendment of MCR 7.306 clarifies previously-adopted amendments regarding election-related original proceedings. Changes include expressing certain deadlines in terms of hours instead of days and requiring date and time stamped copies of certain election-related certifications.
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.
ADM File No. 2019-40
Adoption of Administrative Order No. 2026-4, Rescission of Administrative Order No. 2012-7, and Amendments of Rules 2.407 and 8.110 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following adoption of Administrative Order No. 2026-4, rescission of Administrative Order No. 2012-7, and amendments of Rules 2.407 and 8.110 of the Michigan Court Rules are adopted, effective September 1, 2026.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Administrative Order No. 2026-4 – Judicial Officers’ Remote Appearances
In accordance with this administrative order, and subject to the chief judge’s discretion under MCR 8.110, judicial officers may preside remotely. Judges appearing remotely must ensure that doing so does not interfere with the rights and interests of the parties in any given case, that the remote proceeding is beneficial to the parties, and that public perception of the court is considered.
Judges must comply with in-person requests pursuant to MCR 2.407(B)(4). Attorneys and parties must not be required to attend a proceeding in person if the judicial officer will be presiding remotely.
The judicial officer who presides remotely must
(1) preside from a location that is free of personal distractions;
(2) preside from a location that the judicial officer reasonably believes to have a reliable internet connection that will support remote proceedings;
(3) have their videoconferencing camera on at all times during the proceeding;
(4) display the flags of the United States and Michigan as provided in MCR 8.115(A); and
(5) 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.
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 presence to perform that work in accordance with subrule (C)(4);
(d)-(i) [Unchanged.]
(4) In requiring presence to perform work under subrule (C)(3)(c), a chief judge may consider requests to work remotely from judicial officers as that term is defined in Administrative Order No. 2026-4. The chief judge has a duty to first consider and ensure that the rights and interests of litigants and the public are met when a judge is working remotely. In addition, the chief judge must weigh the needs of the court and public perception, while affording judges and court personnel the professionalism that they have earned.
(4)-(9) [Renumbered (5)-(10) but otherwise unchanged.]
(D) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2019-40): Administrative Order No. 2026-4 clarifies how a judicial officer may preside remotely. A related amendment of MCR 2.407 strikes a reference to Administrative Order No. 2012-7 being suspended, and that administrative order is rescinded. The amendment of MCR 8.110 sets out the authority, responsibility, and duty of chief judges when faced with remote-work requests from judicial officers.
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.
ADM File No. 2026-01
Assignment to the Court of Claims
On order of the Court, Honorable Michael J. Riordan is assigned to sit as a Court of Claims judge for a partial term commencing on July 1, 2026, and expiring on May 1, 2027.
ADM File No. 2026-01
Appointment of Commissioner-at-Large to the State Bar of Michigan Board of Commissioners
On order of the Court, pursuant to SBM Rule 5(2), Robin E. Dillard-Russaw is appointed as commissioner-at-large of the State Bar of Michigan Board of Commissioners to serve a three-year term commencing on adjournment of the 2026 annual meeting of the outgoing Board of Commissioners.
ADM File No. 2026-01
Assignment of Business Court Judge in the 37th Circuit Court (Calhoun County)
On order of the Court, Honorable Jason C. Bomia is assigned to serve as a business court judge in the 37th Circuit Court, for a term commencing July 1, 2026 and expiring on April 1, 2031.
ADM File No. 2026-01
Appointments to the Michigan Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum
On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2014-12, the following members are reappointed to serve on the Michigan Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum for terms commencing on July 2, 2026 and expiring on July 1, 2029.
- Honorable Patrick J. Conlin, Jr., 22nd Circuit Court
- Honorable Cheryl L. Hill, Marquette County Probate Court
- Honorable Steven W. Paciorka, Leelanau County Probate Court
- Honorable Jennifer L. Whitten, Grand Traverse County Probate Court
Additionally, Honorable Jolene A. Clearwater, Allegan County Probate Court, is appointed to serve on the Michigan Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum for a first full term commencing on July 2, 2026 and expiring on July 1, 2029.