State Bar Positions:
Rule Amendments & Administrative Orders

Rule Amendments (in order of effective date)

Amendments Effective Immediately

2020-36: Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.945 and Proposed Addition of MCR 3.947
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.945 and the proposed addition of MCR 3.947 would make procedural changes involving the placement of foster care children in a qualified residential treatment program as required by newly-enacted 2021 PA 5.
SBM Position

2020-36: Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.903, 3.966, 3.975, and 3.976
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.903, 3.966, 3.975, and 3.976 would make procedural changes for cases involving the placement of foster care children in a qualified residential treatment program as required by state and federal statutory revisions.
SBM Position

2020-03: Proposed Administrative Order Regarding Election-Related Litigation
This administrative order would provide requirements and procedural rules to promote the efficient and timely disposition of election-related litigation.
SBM Position: Support

2021-15: Addition of MCR 8.128
The addition of MCR 8.128 establishes the Michigan Judicial Council to strategically plan for Michigan’s Judiciary.
SBM Position

2021-12: Proposed Amendments of MCR 2.117, 3.708, 3.951, 6.005, 6.104, 6.445, 6.610, 6.625, 6.905, 6.907, 6.937, and 6.938
The proposed amendments would generally shift the responsibility for appointment of counsel for an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding to the local funding unit’s appointing authority. These proposed amendments were submitted by the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission, and are intended to implement recently-approved Standard Five of the MIDC Standards.
SBM Position

2019-12: Amendments of MCR 1.109, 3.206, 3.931, and 3.961
The amendments of MCR 1.109, 3.206, 3.931, and 3.961 enable family division courts to use the required case inventory form to administer cases while keeping the information confidential.  This change is intended to prevent providing information that could affect the safety of domestic violence victims and their children.

SBM Position: Support the proposed amendments with the following amendments:

  1. Tribal courts should be listed in the Case Inventory Addendum and included in the list of courts to be notified.
  2. MCR 3.931 and 3.961 should be amended to reference the proper service rule for delinquency & child protection proceedings, MCR 3.920(I) (rather than the service provision for domestic relations proceedings, MCR 3.203).

2002-37/2018-20: Amendment of MCR 2.002
This order makes corrections and technical changes to the rule and clarifies the existing language. The changes were recommended by the State Bar of Michigan workgroup on consistent fee waivers.

2018-21: Proposed Administrative Order to Require Courts to Establish Security Committees
This administrative order would direct courts to establish a standing courthouse security committee to be chaired by the chief judge or his/her designee. The attached appendix is a proposed model local administrative order developed by the SCAO.
SBM Position: Support

Amendments Effective January 24, 2024

2019-33: Proposed Administrative Order No. 2020-X
This proposed administrative order would establish a mandatory continuing judicial education program for the state’s justices, judges, and quasi-judicial officers.

Amendments Effective March 1, 2022

2019-34: Proposed Amendments of Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 5, Rule 6, and Rule 7 and Proposed Addition of Rule 3a and Rule 4a of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners
The proposed amendments would implement a Uniform Bar Examination in Michigan.
SBM Position

Amendments Effective January 1, 2022

2020-06: Proposed Amendments of MCR 2.403, 2.404, and 2.405
The proposed amendments were in large part produced by a workgroup convened by the State Court Administrative Office to review and offer recommendations about case evaluation.
SBM Position: Support

2019-06: Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.302 and 6.310
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.302 would eliminate the Court’s previously-adopted language requiring a trial court to advise defendant whether the law permits or requires the court to sentence defendant consecutively. This language was added following the Court’s opinion in People v Warren. However, in considering the practical application of that language, it may be more appropriate to allow a defendant to withdraw a plea under MCR 6.310 if such advisement is not given rather than require an advisement in all cases. Thus, the proposal would add language providing for such an outcome in MCR 6.310 instead of imposing an advisement in all cases under MCR 6.302.
SBM Position

2019-06: Amendment of MCR 6.302
The amendment of MCR 6.302 makes the rule consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in People v Warren, 505 Mich 196 (2020), and requires a judge to advise a defendant of the maximum possible prison sentence including the possibility of consecutive sentencing.
SBM POSITION: Support with the recommended amendments to Rule 6.302(B)(2):

…the maximum possible prison sentence for the offense, including, if applicable and based upon the matters pending before that judicial officer, whether the law permits or requires consecutive sentences, making clear to the defendant that the representation only relates to cases pending before that judicial officer, and any mandatory minimum sentence required by law, including a requirement for mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring under MCL 750.520b or 750.520c.

Amendments Effective July 1, 2021

2020-26: Amendments of MCR 1.109, 8.119, and Administrative Order No. 1999-4
The amendments of MCR 1.109 and 8.119 and Administrative Order No. 1999-4 allow SCAO flexibility in protecting an individual’s personal identifying information and clarify when a court is and is not required to redact protected personal identifying information.
SBM Position: Support in Concept

Amendments Effective May 1, 2021

2020-24: Proposed Amendment of Rule 7 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan
The proposed amendment of Rule 7 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan would ensure that all main officers (president, vice-president, treasurer, and secretary) move sequentially through the leadership roles of the Board of Commissioners. The proposal was submitted by the State Bar of Michigan.

2020-20: Proposed Amendment of MCR 2.105
The proposed amendment of MCR 2.105 would establish the manner of service on limited liability companies.

2020-11 – Proposed Amendment of MCR 2.108
The proposed amendment of MCR 2.108 would provide a timeframe for a responsive pleading when a motion for more definite statement is denied.
POSITION: Support

2020-04: Proposed Amendment of Rule 4 of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners
The proposed amendment of BLE Rule 4 would explicitly state that a passing bar exam score is valid for three years, which is consistent with the character and fitness clearance expiration.
SBM Position: Support

2020-07: Alternative Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.502
The proposed alternative amendments of MCR 6.502 would address the issue of a court’s recharacterization of a defendant’s motion for relief from judgment that is styled as something other than a motion for relief from judgment. Under Alternative A, the court would be required to notify the defendant of its intent to recharacterize the motion and allow the defendant an opportunity to withdraw or amend the motion. Under Alternative B, the court would be required to return the motion to the defendant with a statement of the reason for return.
SBM Position: Support the Alternative A with the amendments below:

Return of Insufficient Motion. If a motion is not submitted on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office, or does not substantially comply with the requirements of these rules, the court shall either direct that it be returned to the defendant with a statement of the reasons for its return, along with the appropriate form, or adjudicate the motion under the provisions of these rules. When a pro se defendant files his or her first motion effectively seeking to set aside or modify the judgment but styles the motion as something other than a motion for relief from judgment, the court shall promptly notify the defendant of its intention to recharacterize the pleading as a motion for relief from judgment; inform the defendant of any effects this might have on subsequent motions for relief, see MCR 6.502(B), (G); and provide the defendant 90 days to withdraw or amend his or her motion before the court recharacterizes the motion. If the court fails to provide this notice and opportunity for withdrawal or amendment or the defendant establishes that notice was not actually received, the defendant’s motion cannot be considered a motion for relief from judgment for purposes of MCR 6.502(B), (G). The clerk of the court shall retain a copy of the motion.

2019-48: Proposed Amendment of MCR 1.109
The proposed amendment of MCR 1.109 would require a signature from an attorney of record on documents filed by represented parties. This language was inadvertently eliminated when MCR 2.114(C) was relocated to MCR 1.109 as part of the e-Filing rule changes.
SBM POSITION: Support with the below amendment:

Requirement. Every document filed shall be signed by the person filing it or by at least one attorney of record. Every document of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record. A party who is not represented by an attorney must sign the document. In probate proceedings the following also applies . . .

2019-47: Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.804, 5.140, and 5.404 and Proposed Addition of MCR 3.811
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.804, 5.140, and 5.404 and proposed new MCR 3.811 would allow greater use of videoconferencing equipment in cases involving Indian children.
SBM Position: Support

2019-41: Proposed Amendment of MCR 4.201
The proposed amendment of MCR 4.201 would require disclosure of the right to object to venue in actions brought under the Summary Proceedings Act for landlord/tenant proceedings in district court, consistent with MCL 600.5706.
SBM Position: Support

2019-36: Proposed Amendment of Rule 16 and Proposed Addition of Rule 20 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan
The proposed amendment of Rule 16 and proposed addition of Rule 20 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan would clarify the process of investigation of unauthorized practice of law claims and outline procedures for the Client Protection Fund.

Amendments Effective April 1, 2021

ADM File No. 2021-09: Amendment of MCR 3.944
The amendment of MCR 3.944 incorporates new requirements for courts that detain juvenile status offender violators in secure facilities, in accordance with MCL 712A.15(3) and MCL 712A.18(1)(k). The effective date of these amendments is consistent with the effective date of the new statutory provisions included in 2020 PA 389.

Amendments Effective March 24, 2021

ADM File No. 2021-09: Amendments of MCR 3.903 and 3.925
The amendments of MCR 3.903 and 3.925 make the rules consistent with MCL 712A.28(5)(d) by requiring that previously-public juvenile case records be made nonpublic and accessible only to those with a legitimate interest. The effective date makes the rule change consistent with the statutory revision effective date in 2020 PA 362.

Amendments Effective January 1, 2021

2019-31: Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.216
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.216 would enable the Court of Appeals to impose filing restrictions on a vexatious litigator, similar to the Supreme Court’s rule (MCR 7.316).
SBM Position: Support with an amendment to ensure symmetry between the vexatious litigator rules and definitions in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court:

Rule 7.216(C)(1)(a) the appeal was taken for purposes of hindrance or delay or is not reasonably well-grounded in fact or warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; or belief that there was a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal;

2019-29: Proposed Amendments of MCR 7.212 and 7.312
The proposed amendments of MCR 7.212 and 7.312 would allow practitioners to efficiently produce an appendix for all appellate purposes by making the appendix rule consistent within the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
SBM Position: Support this rule change in so for as it would make the appendix rule consistent within the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and recommend asking the Court to consider whether the exclusions as currently proposed in MCR 7.212(J)(1)(a)-(f) for the Court of Appeals should also apply to the Supreme Court.

2019-27: Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.310, 6.429, 6.431, 6.509, and 7.205 and Proposed Addition of MCR 6.126
The proposed amendments of MCR 6.310, 6.429, 6.431, 6.509, and 7.205 and proposed addition of MCR 6.126 would clarify and simplify the rules regarding procedure in criminal appellate matters.

SBM Position:

  • Support new rule 6.126 and proposed amendments to MCR 6.310, 6.429, 6.431, 6.509.
  • Support MCR 7.205 (A)(4)(b) with the amendment proposed by the Michigan Coalition of Family Law Appellate Attorneys that “a delayed application for leave to appealmay be filed within the later of 6 months from entry of the order appealed, 21 days after entry of the dismissal order, or 21 days after entry of an order denying reconsideration of the dismissal order . . . . “

2019-26: Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.314
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.314 would eliminate the oral argument time period and instead provide for an amount of time established by the Court in the order granting leave to appeal.
SBM Position: Support.

2019-13: Proposed Amendments of MCR 7.118
This proposal, suggested by the Prisons and Corrections Section of the State Bar of Michigan, would require counsel to be appointed to an indigent prisoner when an application for leave to appeal a grant of parole is filed by the prosecutor or victim.  The right to counsel also would be included on the notice to be provided the prisoner.
SBM Position: Support

2018-33/2019-20/2019-38: Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.310, 6.425, 6.428, 6.429, 6.431, 7.204, 7.205, 7.208, 7.211, 7.305, and Proposed Addition of MCR 1.112
The proposed amendments were submitted by the State Appellate Defender Office and would address several issues. First, it would expand the prisoner mailbox rule to all legal filings (not just claims of appeal and postjudgment motions) made by a person incarcerated in prison or jail (not just prison, as under the current rule). This part of the proposal includes a new MCR 1.112, and elimination of specific prison mailbox provisions in MCR 6.310(C)(5), MCR 6.429(B)(5), MCR 6.431(A)(5), MCR 7.204(A)(2)(e), MCR 7.205(A)(3), and MCR 7.305(C)(5). One difficulty with this expansion is the fact that most jails do not have a mail log system like that in place in prisons. Second, the proposal would expand certain time frames for filing and deciding postjudgment motions in criminal cases, as reflected in the amendments of MCR 7.208 and MCR 7.211. Third, the proposal would reconfigure and expand the “Reissuance of Judgment” rule, as shown in the proposed amendments of MCR 6.428. Finally, the proposal (as shown in proposed amendments of MCR 6.425) would require a probation officer to give defendant’s attorney notion and a reasonable opportunity to attend the presentence interview, require a probation agent to not only correct a report but certify that the correction has been made, and “ensure that no prior version of the report is used for classification, programming, or parole purposes.” This portion of the proposal also would require the Michigan Department of Corrections to provide the prosecutor, defendant, or defense lawyer with a copy of the presentence investigation report, and further require the court to provide to the parties any documents presented for consideration at sentencing, including any PSIR considered before corrections were made.

SBM Position:

  • Support MCR 1.112, MCR 6.310(C)(5), MCR 6.429(B)(5), MCR 6.431(A)(5), MCR 7.204(A)(2)(e), MCR 7.205(A)(3), and MCR 7.305(C)(5).
  • Support new rule 1.112 with an amendment that would limit the rule so that it would apply only upon the “trigger” of an untimely pleading having been submitted by an unrepresented individual who is incarcerated at the time of submitting the pleading, when the pleading deemed untimely would result in the individual submitting the pleading losing a right..
  • Support the proposed amendments to MCR 6.425, MCR 6.428, MCR 7.208, and 7.211.

2017-28: Proposed Amendments of MCR 1.109, MCR 8.119, and Administrative Order 1999-41
The proposed amendments would make certain personal identifying information nonpublic and clarify the process regarding redaction.
SBM Position: Support the Court’s efforts to address the protection of personal identifying information, oppose the current amendments as drafted, provide to the Court all the comments received from sections and committees, and request that the Court publish for comment revised amendments before adopting them.

2015-21: Amendments of MCR 3.965, 3.971, 3.972, 3.973, and 3.993
The amendments of MCR 3.965, 3.971, 3.972, 3.973, and 3.993 incorporate a requirement for a trial court to notify a respondent in a child protection proceeding of the right to appeal following a child’s removal from the home and the initial dispositional order, and that failure to do so may bar respondent from later challenging the court’s assumption of jurisdiction.
SBM Position: Support the rule changes as a necessary first step in responding to the In re Ferranti decision; recommend the following amendments:

  • The word, “under,” or some similar phrase, should be inserted prior to the MCL 712A.21, such that is would read: “...that at any time while the court retains jurisdiction over the minor, the respondent may challenge the continuing exercise of that jurisdiction by filing a motion for rehearing, under MCL 712A.21 or MCR 3.992, or by filing an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals.”
  • The Court should clarify whether litigants should follow the time deadline set forth in MCL 712A.21 or MCL 3.992.

Amendments Effective May 1, 2020

2018-35: Proposed Amendment of MCR 8.108
The proposed amendment of MCR 8.108 would clarify the rule regarding preparation and filing of transcripts including that a court reporter or court recorder shall file their transcripts with a court when produced for a party or for the court.
SBM Position: Support with Amendments.

2018-34: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.425
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.425 would clarify that criminal defendants whose request for counsel due to indigency are denied are entitled to appeal that denial.
SBM Position: Support

2018-30: Proposed Amendment of MCR 8.115
The proposed amendment of MCR 8.115, submitted by the Michigan State Planning Body, would explicitly allow the use of cellular phones (as well as prohibit certain uses) in a courthouse. The proposal is intended to make cell phone and electronic device use policies more consistent from one court to another, and broaden the ability of litigants to use their devices in support of their court cases when possible.
SBM Position: Support

2018-24: Proposed Amendment of MCR 8.301
The proposed amendment of MCR 8.301 would make the rule consistent with the statute (MCL 600.834) allowing only the probate registers and deputy probate registers to perform certain administrative tasks that would otherwise be performed by the probate judge.
SBM Position: Support

2018-23: Proposed Alternative Amendments of MCR 6.610
The proposed alternative amendments of MCR 6.610 would allow discovery in misdemeanor proceedings in the district court.  Alternative A would create a structure similar to the federal rules (FR Crim P 16[b]) in which a defendant’s duty to provide certain discovery would be triggered only if defense counsel first requested discovery from the prosecution, and the prosecution complied.  Alternative B is a proposal recommended by the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan in its comment on the original proposal published for comment in this file.
SBM Position: Support Alternative A and urge for funding to support these additional responsibilities.

2018-02: Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.501
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.501 would require 50 percent of unclaimed class action funds be disbursed to the Michigan State Bar Foundation or other distribution as deemed appropriate by the court. This proposal is a slightly modified version of a proposal submitted to the Court by the Michigan State Planning Body and Legal Services Association of Michigan.
SBM Position: Take no position on the policy presented in Rule 3.501, but recommend alternative language to clarify the proposed amendments.

2014-46: Proposed Alternative Amendments of MCR 6.508
The proposed alternative amendments of MCR 6.508 would allow a court to consider previously-decided claims in the context of a new claim for relief, consistent with footnote 17 in People v Johnson, 502 Mich 541 (2018), as expressed in Alternative A, or under a slightly different formulation in Alternative B.

SBM Position: Support amending Rule 6.508 as presented below:

(2) alleges grounds for relief which were decided against the defendant in a prior appeal or proceeding under this subchapter, unless the defendant establishes that a retroactive change in the law has undermined the prior decision; for purposes of this provision, a court is not precluded from considering previously-decided claims in the context of a new claim for relief, such as in determining whether new evidence would make a different result probable on retrial, or if the previously-decided claims, when considered together with the new claim for relief, create a significant possibility of actual innocence.

Amendments Effective January 1, 2020

2018-18: Amendment of MCR 3.106
The amendment of MCR 3.106 requires trial courts to provide a copy of each court officer’s bond to SCAO along with the list of court officers.
SBM Position: Support

2018-16: Amendment of MCR 3.201 and Addition of MCR 3.230

The amendment of MCR 3.201 and addition of MCR 3.230 provides procedural rules to incorporate the Summary Support and Paternity Act (366 PA 2014; MCL 722.1491, et seq.) to establish a parent’s paternity or support obligation through a summary action.
SBM Position: Support the proposed amendments to Rule 3.201 and the proposed addition of Rule 3.230 with two amendments requiring that

(1) the agency file a domestic violence screening tool completed by each party and that the court be required to hold a hearing if domestic violence is indicated, and

(2) the IV-D agency must file a waiver signed by each party that they were informed of their right to opt out of the process.

2018-12: Amendment of MCR 2.612
The amendment of MCR 2.612 clarifies that writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review remain abolished.  This language was eliminated when the court rules were rewritten in 1985, but in light of occasional attempts to file these types of writs, it is deemed helpful to clarify that they are abolished.
SBM Position: Support with an amendment to change “are abolished” to “remain abolished.”

2018-11: Amendments of comments of MRPC 1.1 and 1.6
The amendments of the comments of MRPC 1.1 and MRPC 1.6 address a lawyer’s obligation to maintain reasonable competence in relevant technology and ensure reasonable efforts to maintain confidentiality of documents.

2017-02: Amendment of MCR 6.508
The amendment of MCR 6.508 enables a defendant to show actual prejudice in a motion for relief for judgment where defendant rejected a plea based on incorrect information from the trial court or ineffective assistance of counsel, and it was reasonably likely the defendant and court would have accepted the plea (which would have been less severe than the judgment or sentence issued after trial) but for the improper advice.
SBM Position: Support

2002-37: Proposed Amendments of E-Filing Rules 
The proposed amendments of MCR 1.109, 2.107, 2.113, 2.116, 2.119, 2.222, 2.223, 2.225, 2.227, 3.206, 3.211, 3.212, 3.214, 3.303, 3.903, 3.921, 3.925, 3.926, 3.931, 3.933, 3.942, 3.950, 3.961, 3.971, 3.972, 4.002, 4.101, 4.201, 4.202, 4.302, 5.128, 5.302, 5.731, 6.101, 6.615, 8.105, and 8.119 and proposed rescission of MCR 2.226 and 8.125 would continue the process for design and implementation of the statewide electronic-filing system.
SBM Position: Support

Amendments Effective September 18, 2019

2018-27: Rescission of MCR 8.123
Because counsel appointment plan review and data collection regarding payments for appointed counsel is now, by statute, a requirement of the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission under MCL 780.989 and MCL 780.993, this order rescinds MCR 8.123, which requires certain data be collected from courts and plans for appointment be approved by SCAO.
ADM File 2018-27: Rescission of Administrative Order 1997-5

Amendments Effective September 1, 2019

2018-06—Proposed Amendments of MCR 1.111 and 8.127
These two proposals, which would promote greater confidence that a qualified foreign language interpreter is proficient in the language and would reduce the possibility that renewals are delayed, were recommended to the Court by the Foreign Language Board of Review.
SBM Position: Support.

2017-27: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.425
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.425 would make the rule consistent that requests for counsel must be filed within 42 days, as opposed to simply “made” or “completed and returned.” It would also remove the requirement for a sentencing judge to articulate substantial and compelling reasons to deviate from the guidelines range, pursuant to People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358; 870 NW2d 502 (2015).
SBM Position: Support with several amendments: Keep the “filed with the court” language proposed by the court; incorporate the prisoner mailbox rule into this rule; explicitly provide the defendant with the opportunity to file the request at sentencing; and delete the “substantial and compelling” from 6.425(E)(1)(e).

2017-17— Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.001, 6.006, 6.425, 6.427, 6.610, 7.202, and 7.208 and Proposed New MCR 6.430
The proposed amendments would more explicitly require restitution to be ordered at the time of sentencing as required by statute, and would establish a procedure for modifying restitution amounts. This published version was based on an original submission from the State Appellate Defenders Office, but includes additional revisions and alternative language as well.
SBM Position: Support the rule with the following amendments: (1) to address the issue of restitution not being known at the time of sentencing, support the Michigan District Judges Association's rule language for MCR 6.427(11) and 6.425(E); (2) support the Court of Appeals' recommendations that appeals of orders amending restitution be by leave, rather than by right; and (3) remove the reference of the trial court's authority over motions to amend restitution, as it is unnecessary for the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals.  

Amendments Effective May 1, 2019

2018-07: Amendment of MCR 3.993
The amendment of MCR 3.993, recommended by the State Bar of Michigan, establishes a list of specific orders that can be appealed by right regarding an Indian child subject to a child protective proceeding.

2017-15: Amendment of Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
The amendment of Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct explicitly allows judicial campaign solicitation as permitted by law, eliminates the $100 per lawyer limitation, and removes the disclaimer requirement. This change brings Michigan’s canons into conformity with the majority of states that have moved away from solicitation restrictions and instead opted to refer to statutory campaign provisions.

2016-27: Amendments of Rule 7.2 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
The amendment of MRPC 7.2 requires lawyer media advertisements under the heading of a phone number, web address, icon, or trade name to identify the name and contact information of at least one lawyer responsible for the content of the advertisement. The identification shall appear in the advertisement or, if not practical because of size restrictions, on the homepage of the law firm’s website.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-05: Proposed Amendment of MCR 2.513
The proposed amendment of MCR 2.513 would explicitly provide that a court must orally recite its preliminary and final jury instructions for the jury (in addition to providing them in writing). The proposed amendment would clarify that even though a juror is entitled to a written set of instructions, the judge must still orally instruct the jury. This proposed amendment would conform the rule to the opinion issued by the Court in People v Traver.
SBM Position: Support

2002-37: Proposed Amendments of MCR 1.109, 2.102, 2.104, 2.106, 2.107, 2.117, 2.119, 2.403, 2.503, 2.506, 2.508, 2.518, 2.602, 2.603, 2.621, 3.101, 3.104, 3.203, 3.205, 3.210, 3.302, 3.607, 3.613, 3.614, 3.705, 3.801, 3.802, 3.805, 3.806, 4.201, 4.202, 4.303, 4.306, 5.001, 5.104, 5.105, 5.107, 5.108, 5.113, 5.117, 5.118, 5.119, 5.120, 5.125, 5.126, 5.132, 5.162, 5.202, 5.203, 5.205, 5.302, 5.304, 5.307, 5.308, 5.309, 5.310, 5.311, 5.313, 5.402, 5.404, 5.405, 5.409, 5.501, and 5.784 and new rule 3.618
The proposed amendments are an expected progression necessary for design and implementation of the statewide electronic-filing system. These particular amendments will assist in implementing the goals of the project.
SBM Position: Support the Court in its work developing and implementing a statewide electronic-filing system.

Amendments Effective January 1, 2019

2015-20 – Proposed Amendment of Rules 8.110 and 8.111 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments would explicitly provide that corrective action may be taken by the State Court Administrator, under the Supreme Court’s direction, against a judge whose actions raise the question of the propriety of the judge’s continued service. Such corrective action may include relieving a judge of the judge’s caseload, and reassigning such cases to another judge or judges. The proposed amendments also would provide explicit authority for a chief judge (with approval from the state court administrator) to order a judge to submit to an independent medical examination if there is a good faith doubt as to the judge’s fitness that prompted the chief judge’s report.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-46: Proposed Amendment of Rule 15 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar
The proposed amendment of Rule 15 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan (submitted by the SBM Representative Assembly) would increase the fee for Character & Fitness investigations to more accurately reflect the costs of performing the investigations and would update the language to reflect the online application process. According to the Bar, this would be the first increase in these fees in more than 15 years.

Amendments Effective September 1, 2018

2017-10 - Proposed Addition of MCR 6.417
This proposed new rule, based on FR Crim P 26.3, would require a trial court to provide parties an opportunity to comment on a proposed order of mistrial, to state their consent or objection, or suggest alternatives. The proposal was pursued following the Court’s consideration of People v. Howard, docket 153651.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-45: Proposed Amendment of MCR 9.122
The proposed amendment of MCR 9.122 would establish a 56-day time period within which a grievant may file a complaint in the Supreme Court after the Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) has dismissed a request for investigation.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-42: Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.310, 6.429, and 6.431
The proposed amendments of MCR 6.310, 6.429, and 6.431 would provide a “prison-mailbox” rule for post-sentencing motions to withdraw plea, motions to correct an invalid sentence and motions for new trial, filed by in pro per defendants in the custody of the Department of Corrections.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-49 - Proposed Addition of MRPC Rule 1.18 and Proposed Amendment of MRPC Rule 7.3
The proposed addition of new rule MRPC 1.18 and amendment of MRPC 7.3 would clarify the ethical duties that lawyers owe to prospective clients and create consistency in the use of the term “prospective client.” This proposal was submitted to the Court by the Representative Assembly of the State Bar of Michigan.

2016-31 - Alternative Proposed Amendments of MRPC 1.16
These alternative proposed amendments of MRPC 1.16(b) are intended to address the possibility of an involuntary plea as the result of an attorney’s threat to withdraw as counsel for a criminal client if that client does not accept a previously offered plea (under Alternative A) or more broadly if a lawyer seeks to withdraw because the lawyer considers the client’s objective repugnant or imprudent. Under the proposed amendments, the attorney would be required to advise the client that the attorney may not withdraw without permission of the court. Under Alternative A, the requirement would apply only where the client refuses to accept a previously-offered plea agreement; under Alternative B, the requirement would apply in any criminal case in which the lawyer intends to withdraw under MRPC 1.16(b)(3). These proposed amendments arose during the Court’s consideration of People v. Townsend, docket 153153.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-30 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 9.112 and 9.131
The proposed amendments of MCR 9.112 and MCR 9.131 would provide that spouses of AGC or ADB members or employees would be subject to the same procedure for review of allegations of misconduct as the Board or Commission member or employee. This change would comport with recent Supreme Court practice. These proposed amendments are intended to address any perceived conflict of interest that may exist if the procedures in MCR 9.112 were to be used to review a request for investigation of the spouse of a member or employee of the Attorney Grievance Commission or Attorney Discipline Board.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-25: Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.212 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.212 was submitted by the Court of Appeals. Proposed amendments of MCR 7.212 would require an appellant to file an appendix with specific documents within 14 days after filing the appellant’s principal brief. The proposal is intended to identify for practitioners the key portions of the record that the Court deems necessary for thorough and efficient review of the issues on appeal.
SBM Position: Support

2016-20: Proposed Amendment of MCR 8.119
The proposed amendment of MCR 8.119 would clarify the procedure for sealing files and better accommodate protective orders issued under MCR 2.302 by clarifying that a protective order may authorize parties to file materials without also filing a motion to seal.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-19/2016-28: Proposed Amendment of MCR 5.125 and 5.409
The proposed amendment of MCR 5.125(C)(22) is intended to ensure that minor children of an alleged legally incapacitated person receive notice of a petition as presumptive heirs. The proposed amendments of MCR 5.125(C)(23) were submitted by the Representative Assembly of the State Bar of Michigan, and are intended to clarify the definition of persons interested in receiving a copy of a guardianship report for a minor, as referenced by MCL 700.5215. The proposed amendment of MCR 5.409 is intended to ensure that the financial institution statements and verification of funds reflect assets on hand as of the last day of the accounting period, not some time beyond that date.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-08: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.610
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.610 would eliminate an arguable conflict between MCR 6.610(E)(4) and MCR 6.610(E)(7).
SBM Position: View Position

2015-04: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.429
This proposed amendment is intended to provide trial courts with broader authority to sua sponte address erroneous judgments of sentence, following the Court’s recent consideration of the issue in People v. Comer, 500 Mich 278 (2017). For purposes of publication, the Court included a six-month time period in which such a correction must be made sua sponte, and the Court is especially interested in input related to this aspect of the proposed amendments.  In balancing the interest in correcting a sentence at any time against the interest in promoting finality and definiteness, adoption of a prescribed time period seems appropriate. Parties have six months to file such a motion under MCR 6.429(B)(3), and a good argument can be made that if the Court adopted a different time period for sua sponte corrections, the six-month period for parties would be irrelevant, as a party could simply ask the court to do sua sponte what the party could not do by motion. But there may be good reason to adopt a time period longer than that allowed for parties, or to consider a more flexible provision that does not include a specific time period but focuses on application of a standard such as “reasonableness,” “good cause,” or other language that leaves the determination to the trial court.  Therefore, the Court is particularly interested in comments that address this issue.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 1, 2018

2016-23: Amendment of MCR 2.105
The amendment of MCR 2.105 adds reference to service on the “agent for service of process” so that it is consistent with MCL 449.1105(a)(2).

SBM Position: View Position

2017-19: Proposed Amendment of Rules 2.410 and 2.411 and Proposed Addition of Rule 3.970 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.410 and MCR 2.411 and adoption of the new MCR 3.970 would provide explicit authority for judges to order mediation in child protection proceedings.
SBM Position: Support with the following amendments:

  1. Provide for cost sharing between parties and add the following language to protect low-income parties to Rule 3.970(C)(3):

If a party qualifies for a waiver or suspension of fees under MCR 2.002 or the court determines that the party is unable to pay the cost of the mediator provider and free or low-cost mediation services are not available, the court shall not order a party to pay any portion of the mediation fees.

  1. Insert language from Rule 3.216(D), the domestic relations mediation rule, that sets out specific reasons for objecting in addition to a ground based on past efforts (subparagraph (e) below):

Cases may be exempt from mediation on the basis of the following:

  • domestic abuse, unless attorneys for both parties will be present at the mediation session;
  • inability of one or both parties to negotiate for themselves at the mediation, unless attorneys for both parties will be present at the mediation session;
  • reason to believe that one or both parties' health or safety would be endangered by mediation;
  • a showing that the parties have made significant efforts to resolve the issues such that mediation is likely to be unsuccessful; or
  • for other good cause shown.
  1. Add the following to the end of the second sentence of Rule 3.970(F)(1):

“… provided that the parties can demonstrate to the court that the mediator is otherwise qualified for the specific issues in the case.”

  1. Amend Rule 3.970(G)(6) to require any mediation agreement to comply with Rule 3.971, which requires the court to advise a parent of the effect of a plea. 
  2. Correct language referencing Rule 3.974 to 3.970.

2015-26: Proposed Addition of Rule 3.808 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed addition of Rule 3.808 is consistent with § 56 of the Michigan Adoption Code, MCL 710.56. This new rule arises out of In re JK, 468 Mich 202 (2003), and In re Jackson, 498 Mich 943 (2015), which involved cases where a final order of adoption was entered despite pending appellate proceedings involving the adoptee children. Although the Michigan Court of Appeals has adopted a policy to suppress in its register of actions and online case search tool the names of children (and parents) who are the subject of appeals from proceedings involving the termination of parental rights, this information remains open to the public. Therefore, in order to make the determination required of this new rule, a trial court may contact the clerk of the Michigan Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court, or any other court where proceedings may be pending.
SBM Position: Support with a recommendation that these appeals be expedited.

2016-09: Amendments of MCR 3.804, 3.971, and 3.977 and Addition of MCR 3.809
The amendments incorporate into both the rules concerning juvenile proceedings and adoption proceedings the requirement to notify parents that the termination of parental rights does not automatically terminate the obligation to provide support for a child. The amendments also make clear that failure to provide the notice would not affect the parent’s obligation to continue to pay child support.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-13: Proposed Addition of Rule 3.810 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed new rule would require a court to provide an indigent putative father whose rights are terminated under the Adoption Code with transcripts for the purposes of appeal, similar to the requirement in MCR 3.977(J) for putative fathers whose rights are terminated under the Juvenile Code.
SBM Position: Support with the following amendment:

Rule 3.810 Transcripts for the Purposes of Appeal. In appeal following the involuntary termination of the parental rights of a putative father, if the court finds that the respondent is financially unable to pay for the preparation of transcripts for appeal, the court must order transcripts prepared at public expense.

2017-18: Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.903 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.903 would make juvenile guardianship information public. This change would resolve the conflict between the child protective proceeding social file (which is considered nonpublic) and the juvenile guardianship file (which is public) and would make the rule consistent with current court practices.
SBM Position: Support

2017-08: Proposed Amendment of Rules 3.977 and 6.425 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.977(J) and MCR 6.425(G) were submitted by the Court of Appeals. The proposed amendments would require the production of the complete transcript in criminal appeals and appeals from termination of parental rights proceedings when counsel is appointed by the court. The proposed amendments would codify existing practice in many courts, and the Court of Appeals believes they would promote proper consideration of appeal issues and eliminate unnecessary delays to the appellate process.
SBM Position: Support

2014-36: Amendment of MCR 6.425
The amendments of MCR 6.425(G) reflect recent changes to the appellate counsel assignment process by extending and segmenting the timeframe for courts to respond to appointment requests, requiring judges to provide a statement of reason when appellate counsel is denied, encouraging courts to liberally grant untimely requests for appellate counsel in guilty plea cases, requiring the filing of all lower court transcripts as part of an order appointing counsel, and clarifying MAACS’ assumption of the trial court’s service obligations.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective January 1, 2018

2016-11 – Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.208
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.208 would implement 2014 PA 378 permitting alternate procedures to set contempt proceedings to reduce the steps necessary to schedule a hearing. The proposed amendments also would clarify when the FOC must participate in a contempt hearing. In addition, the proposed amendments would implement 2014 PA 381 making the Office of Child Support responsible for determining allocation and distribution of child support payments, and would allow the friend of the court to refrain from enforcing child support orders in situations in which it is inappropriate or unproductive for the friend of the court to continue to enforce child support orders.
SBM Position: Support

Amendments Effective January 1, 2017

2013-18 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 2.004, 3.705, 3.708, 3.804, 3.904, 4.101, 4.201, 4.202, 4.304, 4.401, 5.119, 5.140, 5.402, 5.404, 5.738a, 6.006, and 6.901 (would expand authority to use videoconferencing)
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.004, 3.705, 3.708, 3.804, 3.904, 4.101, 4.201, 4.202, 4.304, 4.401, 5.119, 5.140, 5.402, 5.404, 5.738a, 6.006, and 6.901 would permit courts to expand the use of videoconferencing technology in many court proceedings.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-39 - Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.112
The proposed amendments of MCR 6.112 would provide clarification to the procedure for amending a notice of intent to seek an enhanced sentence by requiring such amendment to be approved by the court, and would eliminate the provision that makes the harmless-error standard inapplicable when a notice of intent to seek an enhanced sentence is not filed timely.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-06 - Proposed Amendments of Rules 3.925, 8.119, and 8.302 and Proposed New Rule 5.133 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.925, 8.119, and 8.302 and proposed new MCR 5.133 are an expected progression in the development of policies and procedures arising from a larger project that was initiated, in part, through the Access to Records Committee in 2009. These policies and procedures are intended to standardize management of court records and to provide a uniform basis for developing parameters on the use of technology in creating, accessing, routing, maintaining, and disposing of court records. These particular amendments will assist in implementing the goals of 2013 PA 199 and 201 and improving the policies and procedures adopted by the Court in 2012 under Administrative File No. 2006-47.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective September 1, 2016

2015-12 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.605, 3.606, 3.928, 3.944, 3.956, 6.001, 6.425, 6.445, 6.610, and 6.933
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.605, 3.606, 3.928, 3.944, 3.956, 6.001, 6.425, 6.445, 6.610, and 6.933 were submitted by the Michigan State Planning Body for the Delivery of Legal Services to the Poor. The proposed rule revisions are intended to provide clarity and guidance to courts regarding what courts would be required to do before incarcerating a defendant for failure to pay.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-17 - Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.306
The proposed amendments of MCR 7.306 would expressly authorize a respondent attorney to file a brief in actions of superintending control when the complainant objects to a dismissal by the AGC or ADB; the proposed amendments would also require the party filing for superintending control to serve copies of the complaint and brief on the respondent and would allow 21 days for respondent attorney to submit a brief, with copies to be served on the plaintiff and defendant.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-04 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 2.306
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.306(C)(5) and (C)(5)(b) would replace references to the word “conferring” or “confer” with “communicating” or “communicate.” The proposed amendment of MCR 2.306(C)(5)(c) would clarify that the term “communicate” would include electronic transmission by text message, email or other electronic manner.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 1, 2016

2014-09 ​Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.215
The proposed amendments of MCR 7.215(A)-(C) were submitted by the Court of Appeals. Proposed MCR 7.215(A) would clarify the term “unpublished” as used in the rule. The proposed amendment of MCR 7.215(B) would provide more specific guidance for Court of Appeals judges regarding when an opinion should be published. Finally, in response to what the Court of Appeals describes as an increased reliance by parties on unpublished opinions, the proposed revision of MCR 7.215(C) would explicitly note that citation of unpublished opinions is disfavored unless an unpublished decision directly relates to the case currently on appeal and published authority is insufficient to address the issue on appeal.
SBM Position: View Position
Appellate Practice Section Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Positon
Probate & Estate Planning Section Position: View Position
Real Property Law Section Position: View Position
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position
Committee on Justice Intiatives Position: View Position

Amendments Effective January 1, 2016

2015-09 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.403 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.403(O) would allow a reasonable fee to be included in a request for costs by attorneys who represent themselves or who are employed by a party to the case for legal services provided after case evaluation is rejected.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-40 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.506 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed revision of MCR 2.506(G)(3) would insert new language that would allow electronic or facsimile transmission of subpoenas to attend when the subpoenas are directed to specific identified departments or agencies and when there is a memorandum of understanding as described by the amendment between the parties; the revision also would require a confirmation to be received within 48 hours after email or facsimile transmission of the subpoena.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-11 Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.613
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.613 would provide clarification that the signature of a minor is required on the consent document (not the petition) for the minor’s change of name and that the minor must sign the document in the presence of the judge.
SBM Position: Oppose

2014-02 ​Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.106
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.106(A) would clarify that a court would determine issues concerning defendant’s pretrial release, if any, at the time of defendant’s arraignment on the complaint and warrant.
SBM Position: View Position
Criminal Issues Initiative Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position

Amendments Effective October 1, 2015

2015-07 Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.101
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.101 would eliminate subrule (B)(1)(a)(ii) and make other coordinating changes to reflect statutory revisions in 2015 PA 14 and 15.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-49 Amendments of MCR 3.903, 3.920, 3.961, and 3.965
The amendments of MCR 3.203, 3.920, 3.961, and 3.965 were prompted by the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394 (2014), to provide clarification and procedural provisions consistent with the Court’s holding in that case.
SBM Position: View Position

  • 2014-31 Proposed Adoption of Rule 3.617 of the Michigan Court Rules
    This new rule, MCR 3.617, would require adoption files of foreign-born children who are adopted by a parent who is a resident of this state to be retained as confidential records (as are the adoption records that are governed by MCL 710.67 and MCL 710.68).
    SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective September 1, 2015

2014-37 Proposed Amendments of Rules 3.963, 3.966, and 3.974 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.963, 3.966, and 3.974 would provide clarity regarding procedures to be followed when an emergency removal of a child has occurred but a dispositional hearing has not been held.
SBM Position: Support

2013-36 Proposed Amendments of Subchapter 7.300 of the Michigan Court Rules
These proposed amendments would update the rules regarding practice in the Michigan Supreme Court, and would renumber and reorganize the rules to be consistent with those in the Court of Appeals for the ease of the appellate practitioner and greater judicial efficiency.
SBM Position: Support with recommended amendments from the Civil Procedure & Courts Committee, the Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee, and the Appellate Practice Section.
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position
Appellate Practice Section Position: View Postion

2013-35 Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.211 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.211(C)(1)(c) would clarify that an appellant, in a case tried without a jury, is not required to file a motion for remand or a motion for a new trial to challenge the great weight of the evidence to preserve the issue for appeal.
SBM Position: Support
Civil Procedure Committee Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 1, 2015

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

2015-03 Amendment of MRPC 1.15
The amendment of MRPC 1.15 adds “credit union” to the definition of “eligible institution” for deposit of IOLTA funds. This change reflects a recent federal statutory amendment that extends federal insurance protection to IOLTA deposits held in credit unions. PL 113-252.
SBM Position: Support
Criminal Issues Initiative Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position
Justice Policy Initiative Position: View Position

Amendments Effective January 1, 2015

2014-42 Amendments of MCR 6.006, 6.104, 6.110, and 6.111 and adoption of new MCR 6.108
The amendments of MCR 6.006, 6.104, 6.110, and 6.111 and adoption of new Rule 6.108 create procedural rules for conducting probable cause conferences and amend current provisions of the preliminary examination court rules to coordinate with 2014 PA 123 and 124.
SBM Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position
Criminal Law Section Position: View Position

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

2014-08 Amendment of MCR 3.221
SBM Position: View Position

2014-06 Amendment of Rule 2.004 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 2.004 allow an inmate’s participation by video or videoconferencing.
SBM Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position

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

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

2013-21 Amendments of Rules 6.112 and 6.113 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position

2013-09 Amendment of MCR 3.216
The amendment clarifies that distribution of property in divorce or separate maintenance actions is subject to domestic relations mediation.
SBM Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Position

2012-02 Amendments of MCR 2.302
The amendment clarifies that distribution of property in divorce or separate maintenance actions is subject to domestic relations mediation.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective September 1, 2014

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

2013-19 Amendment of MCR 3.602
The amendments of MCR 3.602 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

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

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

Amendments Effective May 1, 2014

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

2013-10 Amendments of Rules 2.107 and 2.117 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 2.107 provides clarification by adding the phrase “final order” so that after either a final judgment or final order has entered, papers should be served on the party after the time for appeal has passed. The amendment of MCR 2.117 states that the duration of an attorney’s appearance extends until a final judgment or final order is entered. This amendment is intended to clarify that representation by an attorney who appears in a postjudgment motion ends with the final order related to that matter (after the period for appeal of right has passed).
SBM Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Position

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

2012-26 Amendment of Rule 8.111 of the Michigan Court Rules
This amendment of MCR 8.111 clarifies that the rule applies regardless whether a court is acting in the capacity of a trial court or an appellate court, such as a circuit court considering an appeal of a district court or probate court determination.
SBM Position: View Position

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

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

Amendments Effective January 1, 2014

2013-24 Proposed Rescission of Administrative Order No. 2011-3 and Proposed Adoption of Administrative Order No. 2013-___
Proposed Administrative Order 2013-___ would rescind Administrative Order No. 2011-3 and update the guidelines found in that order. The updates would revise the guidelines to make them more reflective of disposition rates based on statewide court data and to accommodate the fact that there may be delay in any case type that would make 100 percent disposition nearly impossible. However, the 100 percent disposition expectation would remain in place for PPO cases.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-20 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.305 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed changes of MCR 2.305 would make subrule (E) applicable only to actions pending in another country, while new subrule (F) would cross reference the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, which establishes the procedures to be used in seeking a deposition or discovery subpoena in Michigan for use in an action that is pending in another state or territory.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-12 Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.313 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments would clarify that the decision whether to grant rehearing or reconsideration in the Michigan Supreme Court should be made consistent with the standard incorporated in MCR 2.119(F)(3), similar to the reference for consideration of such motions in the Court of Appeals contained in MCR 7.215(I)(l).
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee: View Position
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee: View Position

2013-02 Amendments of Rules 3.002, 3.800, 3.802, 3.807, 3.903, 3.905, 3.920, 3.921, 3.935, 3.961, 3.963, 3.965, 3.967, 3.974, 3.977, and 5.402 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposal incorporates provisions of the newly enacted Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act into specific provisions within various rules relating to child protective proceedings and juvenile status offenses.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-06 Proposed Amendment of Rule 9.221 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 9.221 would add a new subrule (I) that would require the Judicial Tenure Commission to notify a court’s chief judge if a referee or magistrate is subject to a corrective action that does not rise to the level of a formal complaint, including a letter of caution, a conditional dismissal, an admonishment, or a recommendation for private censure. The new requirement would not apply to a dismissal with explanation.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-04 Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.218 of the Michigan Court Rules
These proposed amendments would codify state and federal statutory and regulation revisions that have occurred in the last decade, and would add specificity and detail to the existing language in MCR 3.218.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-31 Proposed Amendment of Rules 7.105, 7.111 and 7.205 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed changes would permit the filing of a reply brief in support of an application for leave to appeal in the circuit court and the Court of Appeals. The proposed changes were submitted by the Appellate Practice Section of the State Bar of Michigan.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-26 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.403 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 2.403(O)(8) would add a reference to a motion for rehearing or reconsideration (consistent with the Court of Appeals opinion in Meemic Ins Co v DTE Energy Co, 292 Mich App 278 [2011]), as well as a reference to other postjudgment motions to toll the period of time in which a party may file a request for case-evaluation sanctions.
SBM Position: View Position

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

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

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 Position

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 Position

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 Position

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 Position

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

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

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
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 1, 2013

2012-20 Amendment of Rule 3.616 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 3.616 provide that the files of adult foster care youth are confidential, but may be accessed by the youth and by DHS. The amendment eliminates the requirement that the petition and order be served on the previous court in which the youth’s child protection case was disposed because the case is no longer active. This order also corrects numbering of subsection (F)(2)(i)-(iv) so that the subsections are labeled with letters (a)-(c).

SBM Position: View Position

2012-13 Amendment of Rule 3.976 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 3.976 requires a court to indicate on the record the reason that no petition for termination of parental rights need be filed, thus providing a record to future auditors who review the state’s foster care program that the court explicitly chose the option.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-12 Amendment of Rule 3.925 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 3.925 clarify the rules and procedures for retention and destruction of various records in juvenile cases.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective January 1, 2013

2012-16 Proposed Administrative Order No. 2012-XX (proposal would allow State Court Administrative Office to authorize judicial officer's appearance by video communication equipment)
This administrative order would allow the State Court Administrative Office to authorize a judge to preside using videoconferencing equipment in certain types of proceedings.
SBM Position: View Position

2012-10 Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.979
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.979 implements the judicial action requirements of 2011 PA 225 and 2011 PA 229 by: (1) acknowledging court jurisdiction over guardianships for which the Department of Human Services will continue providing subsidies after the wards reach age 18; and (2) requiring that the supervising courts conduct annual review hearings and make appropriate findings. Adoption of the proposed amendment will enable Michigan to receive federal Title IV-E funding for the post-18 guardianship program.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-09 Proposed Revision of Administrative Order No. 1989-1
The proposed amendment of Administrative Order No. 1989-1 adds new language that clarifies and expands the standards for allowing film or electronic media coverage of court proceedings in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
SBM Position: View Position

2006-47 Amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules
This amendment explicitly allows for the use of an electronic signature, and allows notarization by electronic process.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-18 Amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules (duty to advise defendant of a lifetime monitoring requirement)
This amendment codifies the holding of the recently released opinion in People v Cole, 491 Mich ___ (2012), in which this Court held that a trial court must advise a defendant who is subject to lifetime electronic monitoring requirement of that part of the sentence during the plea proceeding.
SBM Positon: View Position

Amendments Effective December 5, 2012

2012-15 Proposed Administrative Order No. 2012-XX (proposed implementation of trial court performance measures)
This administrative order would implement the use of performance measures in trial courts.
SBM Position: View Position

2011-18 Amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules (duty to advise defendant of a lifetime monitoring requirement)
This amendment codifies the holding of the recently released opinion in People v Cole, 491 Mich ___ (2012), in which this Court held that a trial court must advise a defendant who is subject to lifetime electronic monitoring requirement of that part of the sentence during the plea proceeding.
SBM Positon: View Position

Amendments Effective September 1, 2012

2006-04 Amendment of Rule 3.204 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 3.204 removes the requirement to file a new action as a supplemental complaint, which allows trial courts to consolidate cases in a way that is more compatible with trial court case management systems.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 24, 2012

2012-05 Adoption of Rule 3.616 of the Michigan Court Rules
New MCR 3.616 implements the judicial action requirements of 2011 PA 225, the Young Adult Voluntary Foster Care Act, MCL 400.641 et seq.
This Court adopted the new rule to become effective April 1, 2012, to coincide with implementation of the Department of Human Services' new program to provide continuing voluntary foster care for youth between the ages of 18 and 21, which will begin operating on April 1, 2012. Having this new court rule in place will enable Michigan to receive federal Title IV-E funding for that program.
By this same order, the Court is inviting public comment to allow interested persons an opportunity to comment and to provide an opportunity to be heard at a future public hearing. This will allow the Court to consider amending the rule in response to any comments that it receives.
SBM Position: View Position

Amendments Effective May 1, 2012

2010-26 Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.210 and Rule 7.212 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 7.210 and MCR 7.212 would extend the time period in which parties may request that a court settle a record for which a transcript is not available and would clarify the procedure for doing so.
SBM Position: View Position

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

2021-41: Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.001, 6.003, 6.006, 6.102, 6.103, 6.106, 6.445, 6.615, and 6.933 and Proposed Additions of MCR 6.105, 6.441, and 6.450
The proposed amendments would make the rules consistent with recent statutory revisions that resulted from recommendations of the Michigan Joint Task Force on Jail and Pretrial Incarceration.

2021-34: Proposed Amendment of MCR 5.125
The proposed amendment of MCR 5.125 would add the community mental health program as an interested person to be served a copy of the court’s order when assisted outpatient treatment is ordered.
SBM Position: Support.

2021-33: Proposed Amendment of Administrative Order No. 1997-10
The proposed amendment of Administrative Order No. 1997-10 would clarify which information about jobs within the judiciary would be available to the public and the manner in which it will be made available.
SBM Position: Support.

2021-31: Proposed Amendment of MCR 8.110
In light of the federal Act making Juneteenth a federal holiday (PL117-17), this proposed amendment would similarly require that courts observe Juneteenth as a holiday. This proposed amendment is being considered in conjunction with other proposed amendments that would eliminate an existing holiday so as to retain the same number of holidays that are currently provided under the rule. The options the Court would like commenters to consider eliminating, if the commenters believe the number of holidays should remain the same, include the day after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, or New Year’s Eve, similar to Federal legal holiday designations. For purposes of comment, commenters are invited to indicate their support or opposition to any of the proposed amendments individually or combined.

2021-25: Proposed Amendment of Rule 19 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan
The proposed amendment of Rule 19 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan would create an explicit provision regarding confidentiality of information.

2021-14: Proposed Administrative Order No. 2021-X
This administrative order would make it mandatory for all courts to submit case information to the Judicial Data Warehouse in a uniform manner as required by SCAO.

2021-05: Proposed Amendments of 6.302 and 6.310
The proposed amendments of MCR 6.302 and 6.310 would require a court to specify the estimated sentencing guideline range as part of a preliminary evaluation of the sentence and to clarify that a defendant may withdraw a plea when the actual guidelines range is different than initially estimated.

2020-36: Proposed Amendments Regarding New Procedures for Courts in Cases Involving Qualified Residential Treatment Programs
On order of the Court, the orders entered on March 10, 2021 (Proposed Amendments of Rules 3.903, 3.966, 3.975, and 3.976 of the Michigan Court Rules) and April 1, 2021 (Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.945 and Proposed Addition of Rule 3.947 of the Michigan Court Rules) in ADM File No. 2020-36 are now effective immediately. The comment period will continue to run through July 1, 2021, and August 1, 2021, respectively, as previously ordered.

2020-29: Proposed Amendment of Rule 410 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence
The proposed amendments in this file would add vacated pleas to the list of guilty pleas that may not be used against defendant. Also, the proposed addition of a reference to MCR 6.310 in subsection (3) would add a prohibition on using a statement made during defendant’s withdrawal of plea to the prohibition on using statements made under MCR 6.302 in entering a plea, which would make the rule more consistent with FRE 410.
SBM Position: Support

2020-25: Proposed Addition of Administrative Order No. 2020-X
The proposed administrative order would replace the current administrative order regarding distribution of funds from the Lawyer Trust Account Program that was adopted more than 20 years ago. The distribution would remain largely the same as it is now: 70 percent to support delivery of civil legal services to the poor, 15 percent to promote improvements in the administration of justice, 10 percent to support increased access to justice (including racial, gender, and ethnic equality), and 5 percent for support of the activities of the Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society. What would be different is that in paragraph three, funds would be used to support increased access to justice generally with specific reference to racial, gender, and ethnic equality, instead of reference to the long-defunct task forces on Gender Issues in the Courts and Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Court. Those issues will continue to be a focus of the money to be spent, but will be able to include additional recommendations. Further, the money could be spent as directed by the State Court Administrator, instead of being spent “within the judiciary,” which unnecessarily restricts the ability to fund programs that exist outside the judiciary but fit within the funding parameters. Finally, the proposed AO would establish a cap on funding for the Michigan State Historical Society to reflect what are likely largely fixed costs for operational expenses; the remainder would be split among the remaining recipients.

2020-22: Amendment of MCR 6.110
The amendment of MCR 6.110 requires courts to allow a witness called by the prosecutor or defendant to appear at a preliminary examination as provided for by MCL 766.12. This proposal was submitted by the State Bar of Michigan.

2020-19: Proposed Amendment of MCR 2.302
The proposed amendment of MCR 2.302 would require transcripts of audio and video recordings intended to be introduced as an exhibit at trial to be transcribed.
SBM Position: Oppose.

2020-17: Proposed Addition of MCR 3.906
The proposed addition of MCR 3.906 would establish a procedure regarding the use of restraints on a juvenile in court proceedings.

2020-16: Proposed Amendment of MCR 9.261
The proposed amendment of MCR 9.261 would allow the JTC to share information with two separate divisions of the State Bar of Michigan: the Judicial Qualifications Committee and the Lawyers & Judges Assistance Program.
SBM Position: Support.

2020-15: Proposed Amendment of Rule 2 and Proposed Addition of Rule 21 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan and Proposed Amendment of MCR 9.119 and Proposed Addition of MCR 9.1XX
This proposal, submitted by the State Bar of Michigan, would impose new obligations on attorneys and would create a new Interim Administrator Program within the State Bar of Michigan. The proposal would require an attorney in private practice to nominate another attorney or law firm to serve as interim administrator if the nominating attorney becomes unable to practice. The Bar would confirm the nomination with the identified attorney, and that attorney would acknowledge agreement. Alternatively, an attorney could pay an annual fee (unspecified in the Bar’s proposal) to ensure that in the event of death or disability, the Bar would appoint an attorney to serve as interim administrator. The interim administrator would be eligible for compensation from the attorney’s law practice or estate; those who participate in the SBM Interim Administrator Program could be reimbursed through that program as a secondary source of compensation.

In addition to comments about the breadth of the program and its particular provisions, the Court is interested in comment that addresses provisions that may go beyond the scope of authority for court rules. For example, under proposed MCR 9.1XX(C)(2)(e), the order appointing the Interim Administrator shall toll all statutes of limitation, deadlines, time limits, and return dates. But such deadlines, especially statutes of limitation, are purely a legislative creation and arguably not within the Court’s ability to change by rule. Further, under proposed MCR 9.1XX(F), the circuit court purportedly has “jurisdiction over all of the files, records, and property of clients of the Affected Attorney, and may make any appropriate orders to protect the interest of the clients …” To the extent that this language could be interpreted to mean that a circuit court judge in one jurisdiction could issue an order affecting a case in another jurisdiction, it is questionable where such authority is derived. And finally, the role of the circuit court judge is more involved under this proposal, and it would be helpful to understand whether the circuit court judges support this expanded role.

2020-14 – Amendment of MCR 4.202
The amendment of MCR 4.202(H) makes the rule consistent with the requirements of MCR 4.201(F)(4) by requiring the court clerk to mail defendant notice of entry of a default judgment. The rule was amended previously to require plaintiff to mail a default judgment to the defendant, unlike MCR 4.201(F)(4), which was not amended. Having two different procedures for matters that are both summary proceedings has caused confusion for courts. This amendment returns the language to its previous status and makes MCR 4.201 and MCR 4.202 consistent again.
POSITION: Support

2020-13: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.005
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.005 would clarify the duties of attorneys in preconviction appeals.
SBM Position: Support

2020-08: Rescission of Administrative Order Nos. 2020-1, 2020-6, 2020-9, 2020-13, 2020-14, 2020-19, and 2020-21 and Amendments of Rules 2.002, 2.107, 2.305, 2.407, 2.506, 2.621, 3.904, 6.006, 6.106, 6.425, 8.110, 9.112, 9.115, and 9.221 of the Michigan Court Rules and Administrative Order No. 2020-17
These amendments largely reflect the substantive provisions of the remaining administrative orders adopted by the Court during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of the orders have been rescinded or expired by their own terms. In this order, the Court rescinds all remaining active administrative orders entered during the pandemic except for the order regarding procedures specific to landlord/tenant actions (AO No. 2020-17, which is slightly modified as shown above to reflect the rescissions) and the order establishing a wholly online procedure for those taking the Michigan Bar Examination in July 2021 (AO No. 2021-2). Moving the substance of these provisions into a court rule amendment format returns the Court’s procedure to the typical court rule revision procedure. The intent of these amendments is to retain the existing practices courts have been operating under for an interim period while inviting public comment. The Court also anticipates comments in response to the reports of two groups of volunteers organized by the State Court Administrative Office (the Lessons Learned Committee and the Task Force on Open Courts, Media, and Privacy). Within the next several months, it is anticipated that the Court will consider further proposals for refinements of these and other new proposals to guide courts going forward.
SBM Position

2020-07: Alternative Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.502
The proposed alternative amendments of MCR 6.502 would address the issue of a court’s recharacterization of a defendant’s motion for relief from judgment that is styled as something other than a motion for relief from judgment. Under Alternative A, the court would be required to notify the defendant of its intent to recharacterize the motion and allow the defendant an opportunity to withdraw or amend the motion. Under Alternative B, the court would be required to return the motion to the defendant with a statement of the reason for return.

2019-35: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.502
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.502 would eliminate the requirement to return successive motions to the filer and would eliminate the prohibition on appeal of a decision made on a motion for relief from judgment. Further, it would require all such motions to be submitted to the assigned judge, and require a trial court to issue an order when it rejects or denies relief.

POSITION: Support with the following recommendations:

(1) Remove redundancies in MCR 6.502(G)(1) as follows: [deletions shown in strikethrough].

Except as provided in subrule (G)(2), regardless of whether a defendant has previously filed a motion for relief from judgment, after August 1, 1995, one and only one motion for relief from judgment may be filed with regard to a conviction. . .

(2) Amend MCR 6.502(G)(2) to clarify that a retroactive change in law or discovery of new evidence provides grounds to file a second or subsequent motion for relief from judgment so long as the retroactive change in law or discovery of new evidence occurred after the first motion for relief from judgment was filed, as opposed to when the motion was actually decided. The amended language would read as follows: [additions shown in underline].

A defendant may file a second or subsequent motion based on a retroactive change in law that occurred after the first motion for relief from judgment was filed or a claim of new evidence that was not discovered before the first such motion.

2019-32: Proposed Administrative Order Regarding Professionalism Principles for Lawyers and Judges
This administrative order would list various “Professionalism Principles” for lawyers and judges as submitted by the State Bar of Michigan.

2019-16: Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.212
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.212 would require appellate briefs to be formatted for optimized reading on electronic displays.

2019-02: Proposed Amendment of MCR 9.123
The proposed amendment of MCR 9.123 would update the attorney discipline process for reinstatement of short-term suspensions and allow for abatement or modification of a condition in certain circumstances.  The Attorney Discipline Board and Attorney Grievance Commission submitted the proposal jointly.
SBM Position: Support the concept of the proposed rule amendment but note that further amendments are needed to address due process issues, including timelines, appropriate forum, and procedure.

2018-36: Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.802
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.802 would eliminate references to the “noncustodial parent” to make the rule consistent with the statute (MCL 710.51) allowing stepparent adoption when the petitioning stepparent’s spouse has custody according to a court order, rather than requiring sole legal custody.  
SBM Position: Support

2018-31: Proposed Amendment of Rule 2 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar
The proposed amendment of Rule 2 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan would update and expand the rule slightly to include reference to a member’s email address.
SBM Position: Support the proposed amendment to Rule 2 with one amendment that attorneys be required to submit only one primary email address that can be used for electronic service and SBM license notifications.

2018-29: Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.302 and 6.610
The proposed amendments of MCR 6.302 and MCR 6.610 would eliminate the ability for a court to establish support for a finding that defendant is guilty of the offense charged as opposed to an offense to which defendant is pleading guilty or nolo contendere. The sentencing guidelines make clear that offense variables are to be scored on the basis of the “sentencing offense alone,” not the charged offense. Further, an “offense to which defendant is pleading” would include the charged offense (if defendant is pleading to the charged offense) as well as any other offense that may have been offered by the prosecutor, so the “charged offense” clause may well be unnecessary.
SBM Position: Oppose

2018-28: Proposed Amendment of Court of Claims LCR 2.119
The proposed amendment of LCR 2.119 for the Court of Claims would require a moving party to affirmatively state that he or she has sought concurrence in the relief sought on a specific date, and opposing counsel denied concurrence in the relief sought.
SBM Position: Support

2018-27: Proposed Rescission of MCR 8.123
Because counsel appointment plan review and data collection regarding payments for appointed counsel is now, by statute, a requirement of the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission under MCL 780.989 and MCL 780.993, this proposed amendment would rescind MCR 8.123, which requires certain data be collected from courts and plans for appointment be approved by SCAO.
SBM Position: Support

2018-26: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.502
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.502 would make the rule consistent with the Court’s ruling in People v Washington, ___Mich___(2021) by allowing a defendant to file a second or subsequent motion for relief from judgment based on a claim of a jurisdictional defect in the trial court when the judgment was entered. Although the Court’s analysis in Washington related specifically to subject matter jurisdiction, reference to “jurisdictional defect” is consistent with MCR 6.508(D).
SBM Position: Support.

2018-25: Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.312
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.312 would incorporate into the Supreme Court rules the procedure to be followed for cases being argued on the application. These rules have been previously included in orders granting argument on the application. A proposed new subrule (K) would alert parties to the fact that they should argue the merits of the case even for motions being heard on the application.
SBM Position: View Position

2018-23—Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.001
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.001 would allow for discovery in criminal cases heard in district court to the same extent that it is available for criminal cases heard in circuit court. The proposal was submitted by the Michigan District Judges Association. The MDJA noted that although many prosecutors provide discovery, there is no rule mandating it. The MDJA also noted that if the general discovery rule (MCR 6.201) is made applicable to district court criminal cases, subsection (I) could be used to limit its application where full-blown discovery may not be appropriate.
SBM Position: Support the rule proposal in principle, but encourage the Court to revise the rule in light of the numerous concerns that have been raised in the comments submitted to the Court and note that implementation of electronic discovery may lessen the impact of requiring discovery in misdemeanor cases.

2018-19—Proposed Amendments of MCR 1.105, 2.301, 2.302, 2.305, 2.306, 2.307, 2.309, 2.310, 2.312, 2.313, 2.314, 2.316, 2.401, 2.411, 2.506, 3.201, 3.206, 3.922, 3.973, 3.975, 3.976, 3.977, 5.131, and proposed new rule 3.XXX
This proposal was created by special committee of the State Bar of Michigan and approved for submission to the Court by the Bar’s Representative Assembly. The proposal would require mandatory discovery disclosure in many cases, implement a presumptive limit on interrogatories (20 in most cases, but 35 in domestic relations proceedings) and limit a deposition to 7 hours. The proposal also would update the rules to more specifically address issues related to electronically stored information, and would encourage early action on discovery issues during the discovery period. The special committee’s report, which provides substantial background on the process and information regarding the reasoning for many of the proposed changed, is being published in conjunction with this publication order.

2018-18: Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.106
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.106 would require trial courts to provide a copy of each court officer’s bond to SCAO along with the list of court officers.

2018-13: Proposed New Rule 3.22X
This proposal was developed by a workgroup facilitated by SCAO’s Friend of the Court division to make more uniform the ADR processes used by Friend of the Court offices.
SBM Position: Support in principle, but oppose the rule as drafted and request that the rules be revised to address the following concerns: (1) attorneys should be allowed to be present at any meeting in which an order may be generated; (2) the rules should provide for adequate domestic violence screening, protocols, and training; (3) confidentiality provisions should be consistent with other confidentiality mandates in the rule; (4) the language regarding automatic orders being generated should be stricken; (5) the language regarding protective orders in subsection (D)(1) should be clarified whether it applies to all parties that have been subject to any PPO, persons who have been subject to a PPO involving another party, persons who have been subject to a PPO concerning domestic abuse or abuse or neglect of any child; and (6) subsection (D)(1) should be amended as follows:
Parties who are, or have been, subject to a personal protection order or other protective order or who are involved in a past or present child abuse and neglect proceeding may not be referred to friend of the court ADR without a hearing to determine whether friend of the court ADR is appropriate. The court may order ADR if a protected party requests it without holding a hearing.

2018-06—Proposed Amendments of MCR 1.111 and 8.127
These two proposals, which would promote greater confidence that a qualified foreign language interpreter is proficient in the language and would reduce the possibility that renewals are delayed, were recommended to the Court by the Foreign Language Board of Review.
SBM Position: Support.

2017-29: Proposed Amendment of MRPC 4.4
The proposed amendment of MRPC 4.4 would define the responsibilities of a lawyer who receives a document that was inadvertently sent. This proposal was submitted by the State Bar of Michigan. Note that the Court adopted MCR 2.302(B)(7) in 2008 to address the issue of discovery material inadvertently transmitted, and that rule requires the inadvertent recipient to return or destroy the alleged protected material, and may promptly submit the material to the trial court for a determination of the claim. To the extent that the final paragraph of the proposed new comment language apparently leaves such a decision to the discretion of the lawyer, this proposed new language may conflict (or at least exist in tension) with the existing language in MCR 2.302(B)(7).
SBM Position: View Position

2017-28: Proposed Amendments of MCR 1.109, MCR 8.119, and Administrative Order 1999-41
The proposed amendments would make certain personal identifying information nonpublic and clarify the process regarding redaction.
SBM Position: Support the Court’s efforts to address the protection of personal identifying information, oppose the current amendments as drafted, provide to the Court all the comments received from sections and committees, and request that the Court publish for comment revised amendments before adopting them.

2017-28: Amendment of MCR 1.109
The amendment of MCR 1.109 establishes a process for individuals to be authorized to have access to a party’s date of birth for purposes of verification of identity with that party’s consent.

2017-27: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.425
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.425 would make the rule consistent that requests for counsel must be filed within 42 days, as opposed to simply “made” or “completed and returned.” It would also remove the requirement for a sentencing judge to articulate substantial and compelling reasons to deviate from the guidelines range, pursuant to People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358; 870 NW2d 502 (2015).
SBM Position: Support with several amendments: Keep the “filed with the court” language proposed by the court; incorporate the prisoner mailbox rule into this rule; explicitly provide the defendant with the opportunity to file the request at sentencing; and delete the “substantial and compelling” from 6.425(E)(1)(e).

2017-25: Proposed Amendment of MRPC 7.1
The proposed amendment of MRPC 7.1 would restrict and regulate the use of the terms “retired” or “former” for a justice, judge, referee, or magistrate who returns to the practice of law. This proposal is a narrower version than one submitted by the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly.
SBM Position: View Position

2017-20: Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.202
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.202 clarifies what constitutes a final postjudgment order in a domestic relations case for purposes of appeal by right. This issue was raised in Marik v Marik, docket 154549, during oral arguments held earlier this term.

2017-17— Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.001, 6.006, 6.425, 6.427, 6.610, 7.202, and 7.208 and Proposed New MCR 6.430
The proposed amendments would more explicitly require restitution to be ordered at the time of sentencing as required by statute, and would establish a procedure for modifying restitution amounts. This published version was based on an original submission from the State Appellate Defenders Office, but includes additional revisions and alternative language as well.
SBM Position: Support the rule with the following amendments: (1) to address the issue of restitution not being known at the time of sentencing, support the Michigan District Judges Association's rule language for MCR 6.427(11) and 6.425(E); (2) support the Court of Appeals' recommendations that appeals of orders amending restitution be by leave, rather than by right; and (3) remove the reference of the trial court's authority over motions to amend restitution, as it is unnecessary for the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals.  

2017-16: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.302
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.302 would require a trial court judge to advise a defendant that if a plea is accepted, the defendant will give up the right to appeal issues that might have been available after the conclusion of a trial.
SBM Position: View Position

2017-06 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.300 et seq. of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.300 et seq. would clarify certain practices and procedures in the Supreme Court, especially as they pertain to electronic filing by parties and electronic notification of the Court’s opinions and orders, as well as require only the signed originals of documents to be filed in hard copy.
SBM Position: View Position

2017-04 – Proposed Amendment of Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 4(E)(4)(a) and (c)
The proposed amendment would increase the acceptable value for a gift given incident to a public testimonial, and likewise would increase the threshold amount for disclosure of a gift. This proposed increase would be the first revision since the $100 value threshold was adopted in 1974.

The threshold amount for reporting gifts is widely variable among the states and federal government. The disclosure threshold for reporting gifts in other states, established by statute or court rule, ranges from $50 to $500. Many states do not have a threshold amount at all; instead, such states may prohibit the acceptance of gifts from certain classes of donors, or alternatively allow judges to accept a certain class of gifts without regard to value for specific events, such as a wedding, or 25th or 50th wedding anniversary. In considering whether to publish for comment a proposed change, the Court also considered the increase in the value of money since the $100 threshold was adopted. According to the American Institute for Economic Research, the value of $100 in today’s economy is $495.92.

In settling on a structure for purposes of publication, the Court used the federal disclosure rule and threshold as its model. For federal judges, the gift disclosure amount is $375, as established by the Judicial Conference. The instructions for submitting the annual disclosure report require a federal judge to:

Report information on gifts aggregating more than $375 in value received by the filer, spouse and dependent child from any source other than a relative during the reporting period. Any gift with a fair market value of $150 or less need not be aggregated to determine if the $375 reporting threshold has been met.

Thus, similar to the federal rule, the proposed amendment would increase the disclosure threshold to $375, but would require gifts to the judge and his family members from a single source to be aggregated for purposes of reporting. Gifts with value less than $150 would not need to be included in this aggregate amount. Further, the proposed amendment would not change the restriction that a gift may be accepted under this subsection only if the donor is not a party or other person whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-46: Special Administrative Inquiry Regarding Questions Relating to Mental Health on the Michigan Bar Examination Application
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering whether questions regarding mental health should be included on the personal affidavit that is part of the application for the Michigan Bar Examination, and if so, what form those questions should take. Before making a final decision on this question, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment generally on the issue or to suggest specific language for the Court’s consideration. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will be considered at a public hearing following the close of the public comment period. The notices and agendas for public hearings are posted at Administrative Matters & Court Rules page.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-41 – Proposed Amendment of Rules 1.0, 1.2, 4.2, and 4.3 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rules 2.107, 2.117, and 6.001 of the Michigan Court Rules
Proposed amendments of Rules 1.0, 1.2, 4.2, and 4.3 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules 2.107, 2.117, and 6.001 of the Michigan Court Rules were submitted to the Court by the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly. The proposed rules are intended to provide guidance for attorneys and clients who would prefer to engage in a limited scope representation. The proposal, which limits these types of “unbundled” arrangements to civil proceedings, describes how such an agreement is made known to the court and other parties, what form of communication should be conducted with clients in a limited scope representation, and how the agreement is terminated. The proposed rules also would explicitly allow attorneys to provide document preparation services for a self-represented litigant without having to file an appearance with the court.

The proposal submitted by the Representative Assembly provides for a limited scope representation where the “client gives informed consent, preferably confirmed in writing,” at MRPC 1.2(b). The Court included this language in the order publishing the proposal for comment, but also provided an alternative formulation for this particular provision that would require such an arrangement to be confirmed in writing, unless the relationship falls within several typical scenarios in which a writing would be unnecessary or impracticable.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-40 – Proposed Amendment of MCR 2.625 and 3.101
The proposed amendments, submitted by the Michigan Creditor’s Bar Association, would address recent amendments of MCL 600.4012, would clarify the authority and process for recovering postjudgment costs, and would provide clearer procedure for garnishment proceedings.
SBM Position: Support proposed amendments to MCR 2.625(E), 3.101(B)(1)(a)(i), 3.101(B)(1)(c), 3.101(G)(2), 3.101(I)(3), 3.101(I)(5), 3.101(J)(2), 3.101(J)(6), 3.101(K)(1), 3.101(K)(2)(g), as these amendments effectuate the language set forth in MCL 600.4012, and oppose MCR 2.625(F), 2.625(K), 3.101(D)(2), 3.101(J)(6)(e), 3.101(R)(2) as these amendments create or change parties’ substantive rights or reduce the amount of information required to be provided to garnishees.

2016-39 – Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.903, 3.932, and 3.936
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.903, 3.932, and 3.936 are intended to clarify the procedures used for consent calendar proceedings in juvenile delinquency cases, consistent with the recent enactment of 2016 PA 185.
SBM Position: Support

2016-33 – Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.216
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.216 would update the rule to be consistent with 2016 PA 93, which allows a court to order mediation if a protected party requests it and requires a mediator to screen for the presence of domestic violence throughout the process.
SBM Position: Support the proposed amendments with the following amendments: 

  1. Revise MCR 3.216 as follows in bold:

Unless a court first conducts a hearing to determine whether mediation is appropriate, the court shall not submit a contested issue in a domestic relations action, including postjudgment proceedings, if the Pparties who are subject to a personal protection order or other protective order, or who are involved in a child abuse and neglect proceeding, may not be referred to mediation without a hearing to determine whether mediation is appropriate. The court may order mediation following a hearing if a protected party requests mediation.

  1. Revise MCR 3.216(H)(2) as follows in bold:

The mediator must make reasonable inquiry as to whether either party has a history of a coercive or violent relationship with the other party. Throughout the mediation process, the mediator must make reasonable efforts to screen for the presence of coercion or violence that would make mediation physically or emotionally unsafe for any participant or that would impede achieving a voluntary and safe resolution of issues. A reasonable inquiry includes the use of the domestic violence screening protocol for mediation provided by the State Court Administrator Office as directed by the Supreme Court.

2016-32 – Proposed Amendments of MCR 5.801, 5.802, 7.102, 7.103, 7.108, 7.109, 7.202, 7.203, 7.205, 7.208, 7.209, 7.210, 7.212, and 7.213
The proposed amendments of Rules 5.801, 5.802, 7.102, 7.103, 7.108, 7.109, 7.202, 7.203, 7.205, 7.208, 7.209, 7.210, 7.212, and 7.213 of the Michigan Court Rules would require all appeals from probate court to be heard in the Court of Appeals, instead of the bifurcated system that previously required some probate appeals to be heard in the Court of Appeals and some to be heard in the local circuit court. The proposal also would establish priority status for appeals in guardianship and mental illness cases, similar to child custody cases.

SBM Position: Support the proposed amendments subject to the following amendments:

  1. MCR 5.801:Delete subsection (A)(1), add reference to MCR 5.101(C) to paragraph (A), revise definition of “final orders” in paragraph (A) to remove reference to MCR 7.202(6)(a) to avoid circularity, and delete “as may be hereafter” in subsection (A)(35);
  2. MCR 7.202(6)(a):Add subparagraph stating that anything designated as a “final order” in MCR 5.801(A) is a “final order” in a civil case, which would render proposed subparagraphs (a)(vi) and (a)(vii) unnecessary;
  3. MCR 7.202(6)(a)(vi):Delete as unnecessary, or, alternatively, combine proposed subsection (6)(a) (vi) with existing (6)(i) to avoid duplication.
  4. MCR 7.202(6)(a)(vii):Delete as unnecessary and confusing, or, alternatively, change “as defined in MCR 5.801(B)” to “as described in MCR 5.801(A);”
  5. MCR 7.212(A)(1)(a)(i) and 7.212(A)(2)(a)(i):Change proposed language as follows:“adult or minor guardianship or conservatorship case under the Estates and Protected Individuals Act Code, guardianship of the person or estate case under the Mental Health Code, mental illness involuntary mental health treatment cases under the Mental Health Code . . .”
  6. MCR 7.213(C)(2): Change proposed language as follows:“guardianship cases under the Estates and Protected Individuals Act Code and under the Mental Health Code, conservatorship cases under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code, and mental illness involuntary mental health treatment cases under the Mental Health Code.”

2016-29 – Proposed Amendments of MCR 7.121
The proposed amendment of MCR 7.121 would update the court rules to incorporate statutory changes enacted in 2015 PA 3 and 207.
SBM Position: Support

2016-27: Amendment of MRPC 7.2
The amendment of MRPC Rule 7.2 requires certain lawyer advertisements to identify the lawyer or law firm responsible for the advertisement’s content. This new language is a revised version of a proposal submitted by the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly, and is intended to identify at least one lawyer responsible for the advertisement’s content as a way to provide potential clients with important information when the services are advertised under the heading of a phone number, web address, or trade name.
SBM Position: Support the language adopted by the Court on May 30, 2018 as preferred over the language proposed on September 27, 2018.

2016-24 – Proposed Amendment of MCR 9.115
The proposed amendment of MCR 9.115(F)(5) would clarify that a hearing panel shall be authorized to allow parties to submit an amended stipulation. If a hearing panel rejects an amended stipulation, the matter would be referred to a different hearing panel to conduct a hearing. This proposed language was submitted jointly by the Attorney Grievance Commission and Attorney Discipline Board.
SBM Position: View Position

2016-07: Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.310, 6.428, 6.429, 6.431, 7.205, 7.211, and 7.212
The proposed amendments were submitted to the Court by the State Appellate Defender Office, which argues that they would clarify practices and provide protections for criminal defendants represented by assigned appellate counsel. The proposed amendments would allow an additional 42 days to file post-judgment motions in certain circumstances, expand MCR 6.428 to apply to both plea and trial appeals and where delay is due to the trial court, clarify in proposed amendment of MCR 7.205 that in certain circumstances, substitute appellate counsel may file a delayed application for leave to appeal within 42 days of appointment (even if later than six months after sentencing), add language to MCR 7.211 to guide parties and courts if relief is granted in the trial court, and change the procedure for seeking permission to file a brief longer than 50 pages in length.
SBM Position: View Position

2015-22 – Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.203 and MCR 3.208
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.203 would allow the friend of the court to use automated databases such as the United States Postal Services' National Change of Address database to identify outdated addresses and update them to correct addresses. The proposed amendments would allow a party or a party’s attorney to agree to receive notices and other court papers from the friend of the court electronically. The proposed amendments would move the requirement to provide notices to attorneys of record from MCR 3.208.
SBM Position: Support the proposed amendments subject to the following amendments to MCR 3.203:

  1. Remove all references to text messaging.
  2. In MCR 3.203(A)(3)(g), change “sent after 4:30 p.m.” to “after the close of business day.”
  3. In MCR 3.203(A)(3)(j), change “the conclusion of the case” to “a judgment or final order is entered and all appeals have been completed.”

2015-18 – Proposed Amendment of MCR 9.108
The proposed amendment of MCR 9.108 would clarify that the Court has the authority to enjoin an attorney from practicing law.
SBM Position: Support

2015-15 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.425 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 6.425 would expressly provide for a procedure under which appointed counsel may withdraw in light of a frivolous appeal in a way that protects a plea-convicted criminal defendant’s right to due process. This amendment would ensure that a plea-convicted defendant could obtain the type of protections expressed in Anders v. California, 386 US 738 (1967), even if the defendant’s appeal proceeds by application and not by right. In such a case, a motion to withdraw may be filed in the trial court, which does not currently have a rule establishing the procedure like that in the Court of Appeals at MCR 7.211(C)(5). The timing of the procedure is intended to ensure that if an attorney’s motion to withdraw is granted, the defendant would have sufficient time to file an application for leave to appeal under MCR 7.205(G).
SBM Position: View Position

2015-14 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 9.200 et seq.
The proposed amendments of MCR 9.200 et seq. were submitted to the Court by the Judicial Tenure Commission to rearrange and renumber the rules applicable to the JTC to provide clarity and facilitate navigation. The proposed amendments of the JTC also include new rules and revisions of current rules regarding costs and sanctions, as well as other substantive proposed changes. This proposal includes most of the revisions suggested by the JTC, as well as some additional substantive changes added by the Court for purposes of public comment.
SBM Position: View Position

2015-11 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 404(b) of the Michigan Rules of Evidence
This proposed amendment would require the prosecution to provide reasonable notice of other acts evidence in writing at least 14 days before trial or orally in open court on the record.
SBM Position: View Position

2015-02 – Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.213
This proposal, submitted by the Michigan Court of Appeals, would make permanent the mediation pilot project that has been operating under authority of Administrative Order No. 2015-8 since October 2015. The proposed amendments have been adopted with immediate effect to enable the mediation program to continue during the comment period.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-45 ​Proposed Adoption of MCR 5.731a
The proposed rule would require clinical certificates to be marked and filed as confidential and would allow only persons who have been found by the court to have a legitimate interest in the confidential documents to be granted access.
SBM Position: View Position
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position
Justice Policy Position: View Position

2014-28 - Proposed Amendment of MCR 2.403
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.403 would require the ADR clerk to notify counsel of the scheduled case evaluation panelists when sending the initial notice of case evaluation. Further, the proposal would require the ADR clerk to send notice of replacement evaluators no later than two business days before the hearing. If notice is not sent in that time, the hearing would be adjourned or the parties could stipulate to proceed.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-37 Proposed Amendments of Rules 3.963, 3.966, and 3.974 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.963, 3.966, and 3.974 would provide clarity regarding procedures to be followed when an emergency removal of a child has occurred but a dispositional hearing has not been held.
SBM Position: Support

2014-13 - Proposed Amendment of MCR 2.403
This proposed amendment, submitted by the Michigan Judges Association, would reduce the time period from 28 days to 14 days in which a party would be required to accept or reject a case evaluation award.
SBM Position: View Position

2014-03 - Proposed Adoption of Administrative Order No. 2016-XX (regarding antinepotism policy and would rescind Administrative Order No. 1996-11)
SBM Position: View Position

2013-26 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.209 of the Michigan Court Rules
These alternative proposed amendments relate to stay bonds. MCR 7.209 is ambiguous whether filing a stay bond automatically stays enforcement proceedings, or whether a stay of proceedings is wholly within the discretion of the trial court and Court of Appeals. In this administrative file, the Court is publishing for comment two alternative proposals. Alternative A would clarify the rule so that it is clear that only a trial court judge or the Court of Appeals may order a stay of proceedings. Alternative B, modeled loosely on the recent revisions of the circuit court appeals rule (specifically MCR 7.108), would amend the rule to establish the principle that, like appeals to circuit court, filing a bond automatically stays further proceedings in a case, including enforcement of a judgment or order.
SBM Position: View Position

2013-18 - Proposed Amendments of MCR 2.004, 3.705, 3.708, 3.804, 3.904, 4.101, 4.201, 4.202, 4.304, 4.401, 5.119, 5.140, 5.402, 5.404, 5.738a, 6.006, and 6.901 (would expand authority to use videoconferencing)
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.004, 3.705, 3.708, 3.804, 3.904, 4.101, 4.201, 4.202, 4.304, 4.401, 5.119, 5.140, 5.402, 5.404, 5.738a, 6.006, and 6.901 would permit courts to expand the use of videoconferencing technology in many court proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013-05/2014-46: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.502 and MRPC 3.8
The proposed amendments would make several substantive changes in MCR 6.502 regarding postjudgment relief from judgment motions. First, the proposed new language in MCR 6.502(G)(2) would insert an “actual innocence” waiver provision similar to that in MCR 6.508(D)(3). Further, MCR 6.502(G)(3) would be added to clarify that shifts in science are included in the definition of “new evidence” for purposes of the exemption from the successive motion limitation. Finally, new language would be added to MRPC 3.8 to require certain actions by a prosecutor who knows of new, credible, and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that defendant did not commit the offense of which defendant was convicted, or who knows of clear and convincing evidence that shows defendant did not commit the offense. The proposed additional language of MRPC 3.8 is taken from the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 3.8.

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 Rules
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

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

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

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

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

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

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
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Postion

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

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

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
Appellate Practice: View Position
Criminal Law Section: View Position

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
Criminal Law Section: View Position

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

2002-37: Proposed Amendment of MCR 1.109
The proposed amendment of MCR 1.109 would address e-Filing issues relating to updating authorized user accounts and e-service of documents that are returned as undeliverable to a registered e-mail address.

2002-37: Proposed Amendments of E-Filing Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 1.109, 2.002, 2.302, 2.306, 2.315, 2.603, 3.222, 3.618, 4.201, and 8.119 are the latest proposed revisions as part of the design and implementation of the statewide electronic-filing system.
SBM Position: Support the Court’s continued effort to implement a statewide e-filing system.  Because the proposed e-filing amendments are nuanced and practice specific, the committee voted to authorize individual committees and sections to submit their position reports to the Court.

2002-37: Proposed Addition of MCR 2.226
The proposed addition of MCR 2.226 would clarify the process for change of venue and transfer orders.
SBM Position: Support with the following amendments:

  1. In Section (3), rather than using the term “promptly,” set forth a specific number of days in which the receiving court must provide notice of refusal and return the case to the transferring court.
  2. Consistent with the Court’s efforts to modify time periods to be in seven-day increments, for Section (4), consider modifying the three-day time period to a seven-day time period.
  3. Provide chief judges authority to exercise their discretion to oversee and administer transfers to help ensure that the rules are being followed.
  4. Provide an electronic process for courts to submit transfer orders and refusals of those orders to help expedite the process.

Declined to Adopt and File Closed

2014-12 Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.211 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.211 would provide language to allow the parties to stipulate (in their judgment of divorce, separate maintenance, or annulment) to postjudgment binding arbitration of identified personal property under MCL 600.5070 et seq.
SBM Position: Support
Alternative Dispute Resolution Position: View Position
Family Law Section Position: View Position

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

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

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
Criminal Law Section: View Position

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
Criminal Issues Initiative: View Position

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