|
|
|
State Bar Positions: Rule Amendments and Administrative Orders
Rule Amendments | Administrative
Orders | Proposed Rule Amendments | Other
Rule Amendments (in order of effective date)
Amendments Effective September 15, 2010
Amendments Effective September 1, 2010
2009-18 - Proposed Amendments of Rules 7.211, 7.313, and 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules
These amendments of MCR 7.211, 7.313, and 8.119 clarifies that materials filed with a trial court, with the Court of Appeals, or with the Supreme Court that relate to a motion to seal a record are nonpublic until the court disposes of the motion.
SBM Position: View Position
2009-06 - Proposed Amendment of Rules 1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 5.4, 5.5, and 8.5 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, and the addition of Rules 2.4, 5.7, and 6.6
SBM Position: View Position
Committee on Professional Ethics Position: View Position
2008-25 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.433 of the Michigan Court Rules
This amendment inserts a “good cause” provision into MCR 6.433 to require a defendant in postconviction proceedings to show good cause to obtain a second set of court documents. This amendment mirrors the good-cause provision in MCR 6.433(B)(2) for appeals by leave.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Appellate Law Section Position: View Position PDF
Criminal Procedure & Practice Committee Position: View Position PDF
Amendments Effective May 18, 2010
2009-26 - Amendment of Rules 5.105, 5.125, 5.201, 5.501, 5.801, and 5.802 of the Michigan Court Rules and Proposed Adoption of New Rule 5.208 of the Michigan Court Rules (to replace Rules 5.306 and 5.503)
These changes, submitted by the Probate and Estate Planning Council of the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Probate Judges Association, have been designed so that the rules conform to recently-enacted statutory changes creating the Michigan Trust Code. The amendments correct and insert cross-references to the applicable statutory provisions, and make other technical changes. In addition, new MCR 5.208 incorporates the notice requirements for both decedent estates and trusts currently contained in MCR 5.306 and MCR 5.503, and replaces those rules.
Amendments Effective May 1, 2010
2009-14 – Proposed Amendment of Rules 7.101 and 7.105 of the Michigan Court Rules
This amendment clarifies that briefs filed in cases that involve an appeal to a circuit court from a district court or an appeal of a decision by a state administrative agency, board, or commission may not exceed 50 pages in length, similar to the length restriction for briefs filed in the Court of Appeals.
2009-13 - Amendment of Rules 2.112 and 2.118 of the Michigan Court Rules
This amendment clarifies that briefs filed in cases that involve an appeal to a circuit court from a district court or an appeal of a decision by a state administrative agency, board, or commission may not exceed 50 pages in length, similar to the length restriction in cases filed in the Court of Appeals.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2008-43 - Amendments of Rules 3.800, 3.802, 3.901, 3.903, 3.920, 3.921, 3.931, 3.935, 3.961, 3.963, 3.965, 3.974, 3.975, 3.976, 3.977, 3.980, 5.125, 5.402, and 5.404 and Proposed New Rules 3.002, 3.807, 3.905, 3.967, and 5.109 of the Michigan Court Rules
MCR 3.002(1)(c) defines “preadoptive placement” to mean the “temporary placement of an Indian child in a foster home or institution after the termination of parental rights, but before or in lieu of adoptive placement, and . . . .” The phrase “in lieu of adoptive placement” is not intended to mean that it is permissible to leave a child in foster care indefinitely, in violation of MCL 712A.19b(6) or (7) or 45 CFR 1355.20, 45 CFR 1356.21, or 45 CFR 1356.50. Rather, it addresses situations where the parental rights to a child have been terminated and there is no permanency plan for adoption of the child. One example is when the child has been placed with a juvenile guardian and the guardianship is subsequently revoked. In this situation, jurisdiction over the child pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b) will be reinstated and the child is placed in foster care.
MCR 3.002(1): The definition of “child custody proceeding” is intended to apply the Indian Child Welfare Act to delinquency proceedings if an “Indian child” is charged with a so-called status offense in violation of MCL 712A.2(a)(2)-(4) or (d). Delinquency proceedings involving an Indian child charged with any other non-status offense are generally not subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act; however, if the initial investigation or subsequent review of a non-status delinquency case reveals that the Indian child involved suffers from child abuse or neglect, a separate child protective proceeding may be initiated, which would be subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act.
The amendment of MCR 3.905(C)(1) states that a court shall consider guidelines established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in determining whether good cause not to transfer exists (Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed Reg No 228, 67590-67592, C.2-C.4. [November 26, 1979]). Some examples of good cause are that the Indian tribe does not have a tribal court or that the Indian child is over 12 years old and objects to the transfer. For additional examples of good cause and relevant case law, see the BIA guidelines cited above and A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act. (Native American Rights Fund, A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act [Boulder, CO: Native American Rights Fund, 2007], 7.15 and 7.16, p 60.)
American Indian Law Position: View Position PDF
2008-39 - Amendments of Rules 6.425 and 6.610 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of Rules 6.425 and 6.610 of the Michigan Court Rules were submitted by the Representative Assembly of the State Bar of Michigan. The amendments increase the time within which a court is required to provide copies of the presentence report to the prosecutor, the defendant’s lawyer, or the defendant if not represented by a lawyer, to at least two business days before the day of sentencing. If the report is not made available at least two days before sentencing, the prosecutor or defendant’s lawyer, or the defendant, when not represented by a lawyer, is entitled to an adjournment to prepare any necessary corrections, additions, or deletions to present to the court. The revisions of these rules also prohibit the inclusion of specific information in the report about the victim or witness, and require that the court instruct those who review the report that they are precluded from making a copy of the report and must return their copy to the court before or at the defendant’s sentencing. The confidentiality provision is based on MCL 791.229.
Criminal Law Section Position: View Position PDF
2005-42 – Amendment of Rule 3.932 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 3.932 requires a court to enter a plea for violations of the Michigan Vehicle Code, and requires a court to report to the Secretary of State violations of the Michigan Vehicle Code that are handled on the court’s consent calendar.
Amendments Effective March 16, 2010
Amendments Effective January 1, 2010
2009-09 - Require a Court to Submit a Local Administrative Order to SCAO When Appointing Magistrates and Referees
Administrative Order No. 2009-6 requires a court to submit a local administrative order to the State Court Administrative Office regarding the identity of magistrates and referees, as well as a description of the scope of the authority of magistrates and referees. These requirements provide the State Court Administrative Office necessary information about who these individuals are and what functions they perform in the trial court. It is the magistrate’s or referee’s responsibility to update his or her contact information.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2009-08 – Amendment of Rule 3.936 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 3.936 eliminates the reference to the return of juvenile fingerprints, and instead, requires the destruction of fingerprints, which more closely follows the statutory authority in MCL 28.243.
2005-32 - Amendment of Rules 2.112, 2.113, 3.101, and 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 2.112 impose specific pleading requirements for a case that is a consumer debt action under the Michigan collection practices act, which will provide defendants with relevant information regarding the alleged debt. The amendments of MCR 3.101 require those who seek a garnishment to provide specific information regarding the interest and costs related to the judgment.
Amendments Effective December 3, 2009
Amendments Effective September 1, 2009
2008-41 – Amendment of Rule 3.101 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 3.101 add language to protect exempt funds from garnishment and require financial institutions to provide authority stating why certain funds are exempt.
2008-40 - Amendments of Juvenile Court Standards and Administrative Guidelines for the Care of Children Administrative Order No. 1985-5
These amendments expand the eligible education categories prospective employees (including administrators, supervisory personnel, county juvenile officers, probation officers, caseworkers, and personnel of court-operated child care facilities) must meet to be considered for employment. In addition, the amendments allow the state court administrator to waive the employment standards if the court provides a reasonable period within which the candidate must meet the education standards, and establish minimum accreditation requirements.
2008-35 - Amendment of Rule 8.115 of the Michigan Court Rules (Cell Phone Usage in Court Facilities)
This rule authorizes a court’s chief judge to establish a policy for the use of cell phones and other portable electronic devices in courtrooms, and requires that the policy be posted in a conspicuous location in each courtroom. The amendment also acknowledges that the policy for cell phone and electronic device usage in nonjudicial areas may be set by the operators of the facility in which courtrooms are located. No photographs may be taken of jurors and witnesses, and no photographs are allowed without the judge’s permission. Failure to comply with the judge’s policy may result in a fine (including confiscation of the device), incarceration, or both for contempt of court.
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF
2008-33 – Amendment of Rule 2.516 of the Michigan Court Rules
This amendment requires judges to instruct jurors that they are prohibited from using computers or cell phones at trial or during deliberation, and are prohibited from using a computer or other electronic device or any other method to obtain or disclose information about the case when they are not in the courtroom. The instruction shall be given when the jury is empaneled.
The amendment prohibits jurors from reading about or listening to news reports about the case and prohibits discussion among jurors until deliberation. The prohibition on juror discussion does not apply to courts participating in the jury reform pilot project, which specifically allows jurors to discuss a case before the close of evidence.
2008-13 – New Rule 1.15A of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2007-13 – Amendment of Rule 611 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence
This amendment explicitly states that a judge shall establish reasonable standards regarding the appearance of parties and witnesses to evaluate the demeanor of those individuals and to ensure accurate identification.
Amendments Effective July 1, 2009
2008-29 - Amendment of Rules 3.901, 3.903, 3.921, 3.965, 3.975, 3.976, 3.977, and 3.978,and New Rule 3.979 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of Rules 3.901, 3.903, 3.921, 3.965, 3.975, 3.976, 3.977, and 3.978, and new rule 3.979 of the Michigan Court Rules reflect the enactment of 2008 PA 199-203.
Amendments Effective May 1, 2009
2008-24 - Amendment of Rule 2.614 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments of MCR 2.614 conform to recent amendments of MCR 2.119, MCR 7.204, and MCR 7.205, adopted May 28, 2008, which clarified that a party seeking leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals has 21 days after the entry of an order deciding a motion for new trial, a motion for rehearing or reconsideration, or a motion for other relief from the order or judgment appealed to file a claim of appeal or an application for leave to appeal, if the motion is filed within the initial 21-day appeal period, or within further time the trial court has allowed for good cause during that 21-day period.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2007-42 - Proposed Amendments of Rules 7.302, 7.314, and 7.316 of the Michigan Court Rules
These proposals would give the Supreme Court the authority to correct a deficient brief or to strike a nonconforming brief, similar to the authority given the Court of Appeals in MCR 7.212(I). The proposals would also allow the Supreme Court to dismiss a case in which a party failed to pursue the case in conformity with the rules.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2007-41 - Amendment of Rule 2.112 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 2.112 clarifies that the subrule provisions apply to actions based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death to which MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304 apply, and more closely parallels the statutory provisions on which it is based. A similar change has been made in MCR 2.403(O)(10), which was also based on MCL 600.6304.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2007-40 - Amendment of Rule 7.205 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendment of MCR 7.205(F)(5) allows a party to file a late application for leave to appeal after the 12-month limitation period in MCR 7.205(F)(3) if the party’s claim of appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction within 21 days before the 12-month period expires or after it expires. A party must file its late application for leave to appeal within 21 days of dismissal of the claim of appeal or within 21 days of denial of a timely filed motion for reconsideration.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2007-31 - Amendment of Rule 4.201 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF
2005-37 - Amendment of Rules 5.105, 5.125, 5.206, 5.302, 5.306, 5.307, 5.309, and 5.403 and New Rule 5.411 of the Michigan Court Rules
These amendments were adopted primarily as a result of submissions by the Michigan Probate Judges Association and the State Bar of Michigan’s Probate and Estate Planning Section. This was a joint effort to increase the oversight of guardianship and conservatorship proceedings, as well as to improve other procedures in probate court.
Amendments Effective January 1, 2009
Amendments Effective October 14, 2008
Amendments Effective September 30, 2008
Amendments Effective September 1, 2008
Amendments Effective January 15, 2008
Amendments Effective January 1, 2008
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 PDF
SBM Position PDF
Civil Procedure and Courts Committee Position PDF
e-Filing Task Force Position PDF
Justice Initiatives Committee Position PDF
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, Comments
Proposed Rule Amendments
2010-21 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 8.110 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposal would exclude cases that are stayed during an interlocutory appeal from being included in the group of cases that a chief judge must report to the State Court Administrator that are delayed beyond the time guidelines.
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.
2010-09 – Proposed Amendments of Rules 3.973, 3.97, and 3.976 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposal was recommended by a committee of the Michigan Probate Judges Association in consultation with the Foster Care Review Board. It would require a court to maintain a local foster care review board report in the court’s confidential social file, and ensure that all parties have had the opportunity to review the report before the court enters a dispositional order, dispositional review order, or permanency planning order. Courts also could include recommendations from the report in their orders under the proposed language.
2009-30 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 1.108 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 1.108 would allow a computed period of time to be extended to the next day the court is open when the last day in the period is a day that the court was closed by court order.
2009-25 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 8.120 of the Michigan Court Rules
Under this proposal, a law student or recent law graduate who is a member of a legal aid clinic would be eligible to appear on behalf of a client in the Court of Appeals. The appearance would require the same protections that now exist, i.e., supervision by a licensed attorney who signs all pleadings, and approval by a majority of the judges of the assigned panel.
SBM Position: View Position
2009-19 – Proposed Amendments of Rules 6.425, 6.502, 7.204, and 7.205 of the Michigan Court Rules
The amendments proposed in this order would impose time limits for the filing of motions for relief from judgment in criminal cases and would shorten time limits for late appeals in both civil and criminal actions. In proposed amendments of MCR 7.204 and MCR 7.205, alternative provisions are offered, under which, upon a showing of excusable neglect, the Court of Appeals or a trial court may grant an extension of time for filing a late appeal.
2009-07 - Proposed Amendments of Rules 7.105, 7.204, 7.205, and 7.302 of the MIchigan Court Rules
These proposed amendments would create a prison mailbox rule, which would allow a claim of appeal or application for leave to appeal to be deemed filed when a prison inmate acting pro se places the legal documents in the prison’s outgoing mail. The proposed rule would apply to appeals from administrative agencies, appeals from circuit court (both claims of appeal and applications for leave to appeal), and appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, and would apply prospectively.
2008-38 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.201 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposal was submitted to the Michigan Supreme Court by the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly. It would require prosecutors to maintain electronic recording evidence made by governmental agencies until the time for all appeals has expired. Failure to preserve evidence would entitle the defendant to a jury instruction that jurors may presume any evidence not produced was adverse to the prosecution.
2008-21 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.932 of the Michigan Court Rules
Alternative A would eliminate the consent calendar provisions of MCR 3.932. Alternative B would require a prosecutor’s consent to the use of the consent calendar and would prohibit the court from placing a case for an assaultive crime as defined in the Juvenile Diversion Act on the consent calendar.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2007-38 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.201 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee Position: View Position PDF
2007-07 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.112 of the Michigan Court Rules
2006-43 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.112 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposed amendment would clarify the rules regarding affidavits of merit as expressed in Kirkaldy v. Rim, 478 Mich 581 (2007). It would establish a presumption of validity for an affidavit of merit upon filing and would require that a party challenge the sufficiency of an affidavit of merit before it can be determined to be deficient. If a court finds the affidavit deficient, the action would be dismissed. The party would then have the period of time remaining in the statutory limitations period in which to file a complaint with a conforming affidavit of merit.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2006-20 Proposed Amendment of Rules 2.403, 2.404, 2.410, 2.411 and 3.216 of the Michigan Court Rules
2005-05 Proposed Amendment of Rules 2.403, 2.404, 2.410, 2.411 and 3.216 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of Rules 2.403, 2.404, 2.410, and 2.411 would revise and update the court rules relating to mediation and case evaluation as recommended by the Dispute Resolution Rules Committee convened by the State Court Administrative Office. View the committee’s report. The proposal also contains proposed changes of MCR 3.216 recommended by staff to reflect the changes suggested by the committee of the other rules in the proposal.
Please note that the proposed order contains alternative options for MCR 2.403(M)(1). Alternative A, recommended by the committee, would allow subsequent claims to be raised following disposition pursuant to case evaluation, if the claim had not arisen at the time of case evaluation, including in cases that involve personal protection benefits under MCL 500.3101 et seq. Alternative B would allow subsequent claims to be brought only in PIP cases; in all other cases, the acceptance of a case evaluation award would be deemed to dispose of all claims in a case, including any that might arise after case evaluation.
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF
Justice Initiatives Committee Position: View Position PDF
2006-16 - Proposed Amendment of Rules 6.302 and 6.310 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position PDF
2006-06 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.215 of the Michigan Court Rules
Resolution of Conflicts in Court of Appeals Decisions
Family Law Section Position: Support View Position PDF
SBM Position PDF
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF
2005-32 – Proposed Amendments of Rules 2.101, 2.102, 2.113, 2.603, 3.101, and 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposal, recommended by a workgroup authorized by the Supreme Court, would establish specific rules for court clerks to screen documents that are submitted to a court for filing and return those documents that do not conform to certain minimum filing requirements.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF
Consumer Law Section: View Position PDF
Justice Policy Initiatives Committee Position: View Position PDF
2005-25 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.203 of the Michigan Court Rules
Compulsory Joinder Provisions
2005-19 Proposed Amendment of Rules 2.512, 2.513, 2.514, 2.515, 2.516, and 6.414 of the Michigan Court Rules
Instructions to Jury; Conduct of Jury Trial; Rendering Verdict; Special Verdicts; Motion for Directed Verdict
Position: View Position PDF
2005-13 - Proposal to Establish and Require Compliance with Court Collections Program and Reporting Requirements
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering adoption of an administrative order that would require the State Court Administrator to establish court collections program and reporting requirements and that would require courts to comply with those requirements
Position: View Position PDF
2004-08 Proposed Amendment of Rule 15 and Proposed New Rule 18 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan
Admission to the Bar; Pro Hac Vice Temporary Practice
Position: Endorsed in concept
2003-62 Proposed Adoption of New Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
Position: View Position PDF
2002-29 Proposed Michigan Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
Michigan Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
Position: View Position 12/4/03; View Position 5/31/05 PDF
Other Actions
2009-11 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, the proposed amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules having been published for comment at 483 Mich 1252-1256 (Part 3, 2009), and an opportunity having been provided for comment in writing and at a public hearing on January 27, 2010, the Court declines to modify the court rule. This administrative file is closed without further action.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Criminal Law Section Position: View Position PDF
2008-09 – Proposed Amendment of Rules 3.210 and 3.211 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, the proposed amendments of Rules 3.210 and 3.211 of the Michigan Court Rules having been published for comment at 483 Mich 1256-1260 (Part 3, 2009), and an opportunity having been provided for comment in writing and at a public hearing on January 27, 2010, the Court declines to modify the court rules. This administrative file is closed without further action.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Family Law Section Position: View Position PDF
The Court of Appeals ruling in Apsey v. Memorial Hospital has been appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court by the defendant. The State Bar of Michigan supports the filing of an amicus brief with the Michigan Supreme Court consistent with the amicus brief filed by the State Bar in the Court of Appeals.
|
print this page
