State Bar of Michigan
home member area contact us

public policy resource center

 print this page

for members
SBM general information

member directory

admissions, ethics, and

diversity & inclusion

justice initiatives

member services

practice management
   resource center

public policy resource

publications and

research and links

sections & committees

ethics for members
ethics developments
ethics opinions
TAON (trust accounts)

from the courts
opinion searching
virtual court

for the public
public resources
media resources

giving opportunities
a lawyer helps
access to justice

State Bar Positions:
Rule Amendments & Administrative Orders

Rule Amendments | Administrative Orders | Proposed Rule Amendments | Other


Rule Amendments (in order of effective date)

    Amendments Effective January 1, 2015

    Amendments Effective September 1, 2014

    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 PDF

      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 PDF
      Family Law Section Position: View Position PDF

      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 PDF
      Family Law Section Position: View Position PDF

      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 PDF

      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 PDF

    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 PDF

    Amendments Effective January 1, 2014

    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 PDF

    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 PDF

      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 PositionPDF

      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 PositionPDF

      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 PositionPDF

      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 PositionPDF

      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 PDF

      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 PDF

      2008-21 Amendment of Rule 3.932 of the Michigan Court Rules
      The amendments require the prosecutor's consent to placing a juvenile on the consent calendar and prohibit the court from considering on the consent calendar an offense that includes an "assaultive crime" as defined in the Juvenile Diversion Act.

      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 PDF
      SBM Position: View Position PDF

    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 PDF

      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 PDF

      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 PDF

    Amendments Effective January 1, 2013

    Amendments Effective December 5, 2012

    Amendments Effective September 1, 2012

    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 PDF

    Amendments Effective May 1, 2012

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

Declined to Adopt and File Closed

    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 PDF

    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 PDF

    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 PDF
    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 PDF
    Criminal Issues Initiative: View Position PDF

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



follow us
Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on LinkedIn Follow Us on Twitter Follow the SBM Blog


©Copyright 2014

website links
Contact Us
Site Map
Website Privacy Statement PDF
Staff Links

SBM on the Mapcontact information
State Bar of Michigan
306 Townsend St
Lansing, MI 48933-2012
Phone: (517) 346-6300
Toll Free: (800) 968-1442
Fax: (517) 482-6248