Rule Amendments | Administrative Orders | Proposed Rule Amendments | Other

Rule Amendments (in order of effective date)

Immediately

2008-26 - Amendment of Rule 4 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan
This proposal, submitted by the State Bar of Michigan, would allow for a waiver of bar dues for up to four year for members who are in full-time active-duty status in the United States Armed Forces.

Amendments Effective September 1, 2009

2008-41 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.101 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 3.101 would add language to protect exempt funds from garnishment and would require financial institutions to provide authority stating why certain funds are exempt.

2008-40 - Proposed Amendments of Juvenile Court Standards and Administrative Guidelines for the Care of Children Administrative Order No. 1985-5
This proposal would 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 proposal would 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 establishes minimum accreditation requirements.

2008-35 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 8.115 of the Michigan Court Rules (Cell Phone Usage in Court Facilities)
Alternative A, submitted by the State Bar of Michigan but with several clarifying revisions, would allow attorneys to bring cell phones into a courthouse, but would limit their use in courtrooms during court proceedings. In addition, the proposal would allow a court to impose sanctions for failure to comply with cell phone usage restrictions. Alternative B, similar to one submitted by the State Bar of Michigan, would allow attorneys to bring cell phones into a courthouse, but would prohibit their use in courtrooms during court proceedings. In addition, the proposal would allow a court to impose sanctions for failure to comply with cell phone usage restrictions.
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF

2008-33 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.516 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposal, submitted by the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, would require judges to instruct jurors that they are prohibited from using computers or cell phones when they are in attendance at trial or during deliberation, and prohibited from using a computer or other electronic device to obtain information about the case when they are not in the courtroom. It would further require a juror who knows or has reason to know that another juror has violated these prohibitions to inform the judge. The proposal also would prohibit discussion among jurors until deliberation, and would prohibit jurors from reading about or listening to news reports about the case.

2008-13 – Proposed New Rule 1.15A of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
SBM Position: View Position PDF

2007-13 – Proposed 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 - Proposed 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 proposed 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 recent enactment of 2008 PA 199-203.

Amendments Effective May 1, 2009

2008-24 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.614 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.614 are intended to make the rule consistent with recent amendments of MCR 2.119, 7.204, and 7.205, adopted May 28, 2008, and effective September 1, 2008, which clarified that a party who seeks to appeal to 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 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.112 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 2.112 would clarify that the comparative negligence provisions apply to actions based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death. This language would more closely parallel the statutory provisions of MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304, as amended by 1995 PA 249.
SBM Position: View Position PDF

2007-40 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.205 of the Michigan Court Rules
Alternative A would adopt the principle that the period in which to file an application for delayed appeal pursuant to MCR 7.205(F) is tolled while a claim of appeal is pending. Alternative B would clarify that the period in which to file an application for delayed appeal pursuant to MCR 7.205(F) is not tolled while a claim of appeal is pending, except as allowed by the rule.
SBM Position: View Position PDF

2007-31 - Proposed 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

2006-09 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.202 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position PDF

2007-24 - Proposed Amendment of Rules 2.301, 2.302, 2.401 and 2.506 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position PDF

2007-30 - Proposed Amendment of Rules 2.107 and 2.117 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF

2007-28 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.901 of the Michigan Court Rules
Proposed Adoption of New Rule 3.930 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position PDF

2008-22 Proposed Adoption of the Amendment of Rules 3.903 and 3.920 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposal would clarify that information regarding the identity or location of a foster parent, preadoptive parent, or relative caregiver is part of the confidential file and, therefore, a proof of service that includes identifying or location information regarding those parties must also be maintained in the confidential file.

Amendments Effective October 14, 2008

2008-19 Retention of the Amendment of Rule 3.928 of the Michigan Court Rules
This amendment changes the current maximum penalty from 30 days in jail for contempt of court to 93 days in jail for contempt of court to conform to MCL 600.1715.
SBM Position: View Position PDF

Amendments Effective September 30, 2008

2008-20 Proposed Adoption of the Amendment of Rule 6 of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners
The proposed order increases the fees for application for the bar examination from $300 to $340, and for reexamination from $200 to $240.  The proposed increase in fees would allow for the implementation of the change in policy regarding grading Michigan bar examinations that is reflected in the attached notice.
SBM Position: View Position PDF

Amendments Effective September 1, 2008

2007-36 - Proposed Amendment of 9.208 of the Michigan Court Rules
Judicial Tenure Commission Proceedings Evidence Exchange

2007-21 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.510 of the Michigan Court Rules
Juror Selection
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF

2007-09 - Proposed Amendment of 2.306 of the Michigan Court Rules
To require objections at depositions to be concise, nonargumentative, and nonsuggestive and to allow for the imposition of sanctions
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Family Law Section Position: View Position PDF

2006-32 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.504 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF
Justice Initiatives Committee Position: View Position PDF

2006-11 - Proposed Amendment of Rules 2.614, 7.101, 7.209, and 7.302 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF
Public Corporation Section Position: View Position PDF

2006-10 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.603 of the Michigan Court Rules
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF

2005-36 - Proposed Amendment of Rules 2.119, 7.204, and 7.205 of the Michigan Court Rules
Court of Appeals Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Family Law Section Position: View Position PDF
Appellate Law Section Position: View Position PDF
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position: View Position PDF

2006-04 - Proposed Amendment of Rules 3.204 and 3.212 of the Michigan Court Rules (Proceedings Affecting Minors and Postjudgment Transfer of Domestic Relations Cases) PDF

Amendments Effective January 15, 2008

2007-16 - Adoption of Rule 4.201(C) of the Local Court Rules of the 55th Judicial District Court (Ingham County)

Amendments Effective January 1, 2008

2005-41 - Adoption of Rule 19 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan

2003-59 - Amendment of Rules 2.112 and 7.206 of the Michigan Court Rules
Special Pleading Requirements in Actions Alleging a Violation of the Headlee Amendment

2006-28 - Amendment of Rules 5.207, 5.302, 5.307, and 5.409 of the Michigan Court Rules
Amendments were Proposed by the Probate and Estate Planning Section of the State Bar of Michigan

2005-31 - Amendments of Rule 3.602 of the Michigan Court Rules
Proceedings to Compel or to Stay Arbitration; Modification or Correction of Award
Family Law Section Position: View Position PDF

2005-31 Proposed Amendments of Rule 3.602 of the Michigan Court Rules
Arbitration
Position: View Position PDF

2006-44 Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.306 of the Michigan Court Rules
Briefs in Calendar Cases
Position: View Position PDF

2007-12 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.107 of the Michigan Court Rules
Provision to Allow e-Discovery and to Clarify Filing Requirements Position: The State Bar’s Representative Assembly submitted the amendments to the Michigan Supreme Court for its consideration.
SBM Position PDF
e-Filing Task Force Position PDF

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

2009-14 – Proposed Amendment of Rules 7.101 and 7.105 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposal would clarify 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 - Proposed Amendment of Rules 2.112 and 2.118 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendments of MCR 2.112 and 2.118 would set a time limit on the period for raising challenges to affidavits of merit and meritorious defense and notices of intent in medical malpractice actions. The proposal also would allow amendment when an affidavit is found to be insufficient unless such amendment would be unjustified, and would explicitly state that the amended affidavit of merit or meritorious defense relates back to the date of the affidavit’s original filing.
SBM Position: View Position PDF

2009-11 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.302 would require all discussions regarding a defendant’s plea agreement to occur in open and on the record to reduce the possibility that a defendant would be coerced into agreeing to a particular sentence.

2009-09 - Proposal to Require a Court to Submit a Local Administrative Order to SCAO When Appointing Magistrates and Referees
This proposed administrative order would require 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 would provide the State Court Administrative Office necessary information about who these individuals are and what functions they perform in the trial court. It would be the magistrate’s or referee’s responsibility to update his or her contact information.
SBM Position: View Position PDF

2009-08 – Proposed Amendment of Rule 3.936 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposal would eliminate the procedure by which a juvenile could ask for the return of fingerprints, and instead would require the destruction of fingerprints, which more closely follows the statutory authority in MCL 28.243.

2009-04 – Proposals Regarding Procedure for Disqualification of Supreme Court Justices
These three proposals would establish specific rules for disqualification of Supreme Court justices. The proposals vary considerably with regard to the procedure for disqualification, the grounds for determining whether disqualification is warranted, and the ability to review another justice’s decision to recuse.
SBM Position: View Position PDF
Appellate Practice Section Position: View Position PDF

2008-39 - Proposed Amendments of Rules 6.425 and 6.610 of the Michigan Court Rules
The proposed 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 and would 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 two business days before the day of sentencing. If the report is not made available at least two days before sentencing, the defendant’s lawyer, or the defendant, if not represented by a lawyer, would be entitled to adjournment to prepare necessary corrections, additions, or deletions to present to the court. The proposed revisions of these rules also would prohibit the inclusion of specific information in the report about the victim or witness.

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.

2008-09 – Proposed Amendment of Rules 3.210 and 3.211 of the Michigan Court Rules
This proposal, submitted by the Michigan Judges Association, is intended to clarify and simplify the procedures courts use to grant judgments in domestic relations cases.
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 Amendment of Rules 2.112, 2.113, 3.101, and 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules
These proposed amendments reflect in substantial part a proposal submitted by the 46th District Court to require more specific pleading in debt collection cases than in other types of cases, and to allow a chief judge to authorize court clerks to screen pleadings in all cases and to reject them if they do not comply with the Michigan Court Rules, Michigan statutes, or the Michigan Supreme Court records standards. A party whose documents were rejected would be entitled to a prompt judicial review upon request. Further, the proposal would require that a request for a writ of garnishment include information regarding the total amount of post judgment interest and costs accrued to date, and the total amount of post judgment payments made to date.

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

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.