Amendment of Rule 3.305 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendment of Rule 3.305 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective immediately.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underliningand deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 3.305 Mandamus
(A) Jurisdiction.
(1) Unless the constitution, a statute, or court rule requires aAn action for mandamus against a state officer to be brought in the Supreme Court, the action mustmay be brought in the Court of Appeals or the Court of Claims.
(2) [Unchanged.]
(B)-(G) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-46): The amendment of MCR 3.305 clarifies where to file a mandamus action.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 6.302 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underliningand deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 6.302 Pleas of Guilty and Nolo Contendere
(A)-(F) [Unchanged.]
(G) After the court accepts a defendant’s plea, it must advise the defendant, either orally or in writing, that the plea may be withdrawn in accordance with MCR 6.310. Any advice must specifically state that if the defendant engages in misconduct, as that term is defined in MCR 6.310, before sentencing,
(1) the defendant will not be allowed to withdraw the plea unless the court allows for good cause, and
(2) the court will not be required to abide by any sentencing agreement or evaluation.
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-59): The proposed amendment of MCR 6.302 would require courts, after accepting a plea, to advise defendants of their ability to withdraw their plea and to specifically advise defendants of the consequences of misconduct in between plea acceptance and sentencing.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and the state court administrator so they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Jan. 1, 2025, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-59. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
Zahra, J., would have declined to publish the proposal for comment.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.433 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 6.433 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before
determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underliningand deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 6.433 Documents for Postconviction Proceedings; Indigent Defendant
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) Other Postconviction Proceedings. An indigent defendant who is not eligible to file an appeal of right or an application for leave to appeal may obtain records and documents as provided in this subrule.
(1)-(2) [Unchanged.]
(3) The court may order the transcription of additional proceedings if it finds that there is good cause for doing so. A defendant must provide the following information before a court can determine whether good cause exists to order transcription under this subrule:
(a) The date of the proceeding(s) for which the defendant is seeking transcription.
(b) The specific reason(s) why a transcript is needed.
(c) How each requested transcript will improve the defendant’s chance of receiving postconviction relief.
After such a transcript has been prepared, the clerk must provide a copy to the defendant.
(4) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2023-07): The proposed amendment of MCR 6.433 would require an indigent defendant to provide certain information before a court can consider whether good cause exists to order transcription of additional proceedings.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and the state court administrator so they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Jan. 1, 2025, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2023-07. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 1.6 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 1.6 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underliningand deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of Information
(a)-(b) [Unchanged.]
(c) A lawyer may reveal:
(1)-(3) [Unchanged.]
(4) the intention of a client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime; and
(5) confidences or secrets necessary to establish or collect a fee, or to defend the lawyer or the lawyer’s employees or associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct; and.
(6) confidences or secrets to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client from self-harm that may result in the client’s death.
(d) [Unchanged.]
Comment:
[Paragraphs 1-25 unchanged.]
Confidentiality of Information.
When transmitting a communication that contains confidential and/or privileged information relating to the representation of a client, the lawyer should take reasonable measures and act competently so that the confidential and/or privileged client information will not be revealed to unintended third parties. Any confidences or secrets that may be disclosed under paragraph (c)(6) may only be disclosed to an individual or entity who is licensed by the State of Michigan to provide information about or assistance with regard to suicidal individuals.
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2023-25): The proposed amendment of MRPC 1.6 would provide an exception to the confidentiality rule by permitting a lawyer to reveal, to certain individuals, confidences or secrets to the extent reasonably necessary to protect a client from self-harm that may result in the client’s death.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and the state court Administrator so they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Jan. 1, 2025, by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2023-25. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
Amendment of Rule 8.128 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendment of Rule 8.128 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective immediately.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 8.128 Michigan Judicial Council
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) Membership
(1) [Unchanged.]
(2) All members shall be appointed by the Supreme Court. Members serving on the Judicial Council by nature of their positions designated in subparagraphs (C)(1)(a), (c) and (d) shall serve on the Judicial Council so long as they hold that position. Of the remaining members appointed by the Supreme Court, one-third shall initially be appointed to a two-year term, one-third appointed to a three-year term and one-third appointed to a four-year term. All members appointed or reappointed following these inaugural terms shall serve three-year terms. Terms commence January 1st of each calendar year. Unless otherwise specified in MCR 8.128(H) or the member is required or nominated to serve under MCR 8.128(C)(1)(a), (b), (c), or (d), nNo member may consecutively serve more than two fullconsecutive terms.
(D)-(G) [Unchanged.]
(H) Vacancies. In the event of a vacancy on the Judicial Council, a replacement member shall be appointed by the Supreme Court for the remainder of the term of the former incumbent. After serving the remainder of the term, the new member may consecutively servebe reappointed for up to two full consecutive terms.
(I)-(K) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2024-09): The amendment of MCR 8.128(C) and (H) clarifies the number of allowed terms for members of the Michigan Judicial Council.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
Adoption of Local Court Rule 2.518 for the 13th Circuit Court and the Antrim, Grand Traverse, and Leelanau Probate Courts
On order of the Court, the following Local Court Rule 2.518 for the 13th Circuit Court and the Antrim, Grand Traverse, and Leelanau Probate Courts is adopted, effective Jan. 1, 2025.
LCR 2.518 Submission of Trial and Hearing Exhibits
(A) Introduction. This local rule establishes a procedure for represented and unrepresented parties to submit proposed exhibits to the court prior to hearings and trials.
(B) Submission of Exhibits in General.
(1) Exhibits are Not Court Records. Pursuant to MCR 1.109(A)(2), exhibits that are maintained by the court reporter or other authorized staff pursuant to MCR 2.518 or MCR 3.930 during the pendency of a proceeding are not court records.
(2) Personal Identifying Information. Motions and pleadings may reference attachments, except that such attachments shall not include unredacted personal identifying information, unless submitted in the form and manner established by the State Court Administrative Office.
(3) Attachment of Prohibited or Confidential Information. No motion or pleading shall attach any document that is:
(a) described in MCR 3.229,
(b) within the scope of a protective order filed or requested in the action, or
(c) the subject of an entered order or pending motion to seal the document under MCR 8.119(I), unless such document is identified as nonpublic, confidential, or sealed, pursuant to applicable court rule. Attachments to pleadings that violate this rule are subject to being stricken pursuant to MCR 2.115(B).
(4) Prior Orders or Judgments. It is unnecessary and redundant to attach copies of prior court orders or judgments to pleadings filed in the same case, as such prior orders are already part of the record.
(5) Attachments to and Items Inserted Within Pleadings are Not Exhibits. No attachment to or item inserted, copied and pasted, or similarly included within a filed pleading shall be considered an exhibit. No attachment to or item inserted, copied and pasted, or similarly included within a filed pleading shall be simultaneously admissible as an exhibit at any subsequent hearing or trial (i.e., no attachment to a pleading may be removed from a court file to be used as an exhibit). A separate copy must be provided and marked as an exhibit at such a hearing or trial.
(6) Disposal of Exhibits. Pursuant to MCR 2.518, upon expiration of the applicable appeal period, parties shall retrieve the exhibits submitted by them except that any weapons and drugs shall be returned to the confiscating agency for proper disposition. If the exhibits are not requested and retrieved within 56 days after the conclusion of the applicable appeal period, the court may properly dispose of the exhibits without notice to the parties. Unretrieved exhibits that are confidential records or confidential electronic records may be disposed of by shredding or deletion, respectively.
(C) Prehearing and Pretrial Submission of Exhibits.
(1) Existing Pretrial Orders in a Case are Controlling. Documents, photographs, and other physical evidence shall be disclosed and exchanged between the parties in accordance with any pretrial or scheduling order entered in the case, and in accord with discovery requests pursuant to the Michigan Court Rules.
(2) Exchange of Exhibits in Absence of Pretrial Order. In the absence of a specific pretrial or scheduling order, parties shall exchange proposed exhibits at least seven days before any evidentiary hearing or trial before the judge, and parties shall exchange proposed exhibits at least 48 hours before any referee hearing or motion hearing, unless the court permits otherwise for good cause. These disclosure/exchange requirements do not apply to evidence submitted for rebuttal purposes. All proposed exhibits for any evidentiary hearing or trial are subject to admissibility under the Michigan Rules of Evidence. If the volume or nature of the proposed exhibit(s) makes them excessively expensive, difficult, or burdensome to print or submit in physical form, the proposing party shall promptly advise the court so as to determine whether electronic evidence can be exchanged between parties and presented to the court in a mutually-compatible electronic format, capable of being presented in court, and preserved as part of the electronic record. The timing of exhibit exchange under this rule does not override any requirements of the Michigan Court Rules imposing earlier exchange time frames.
(3) Court Staff Assistance is Limited. Court staff shall have no obligation to print any electronic file to paper or convert it to any other format prior to a hearing or trial. Any such printing done by court staff is strictly a courtesy to the judge and is conditioned upon court staff’s time and availability. Judges and referees are not expected to search for proposed physical or electronic evidence prior to or during any hearing or trial, and submission of proposed exhibits directly to a judge or referee via email is prohibited as an ex parte communication.
(4) Prior Arrangement for Presentation of Electronic Evidence Required. Any party intending to present electronic evidence at any trial or hearing is responsible for confirming, before said trial or hearing, that:
(a) said electronic evidence is compatible with the court’s technology;
(b) it can be seen, heard, or read during the trial or hearing;
(c) if admitted into evidence, it can be preserved as part of the court record; and
(d) said party will be capable of presenting said electronic evidence using available technology.
Failure to confirm such compatibility and capacity prior to the hearing or trial is not grounds for adjournment unless the court determines otherwise for good cause. Nothing in this subrule authorizes the court to refuse to admit evidence that is otherwise admissible pursuant to the Michigan Rules of Evidence.
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2024-16): The adoption of LCR 2.518 facilitates the submission of proposed exhibits in the 13th Circuit Court and the Antrim, Grand Traverse, and Leelanau County Probate Courts.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
Appointments to the Attorney Discipline Board
On order of the Court pursuant to MCR 9.110, Peter Smit (attorney member), Jason M. Turkish (attorney member), and Dr. Louis J. Prues (layperson) are reappointed to the Attorney Discipline Board for terms commencing on Oct. 1, 2024, and ending on Sept. 30, 2027.
Alan Gershel is reappointed as chair and Peter Smit is reappointed as vice-chair of the board for terms commencing on Oct. 1, 2024, and ending on Sept. 30, 2025.
Appointments of Commissioners-at-Large to the State Bar of Michigan Board of Commissioners
On order of the Court pursuant to State Bar Rule 5, Section 2, Elizabeth Kitchen-Troop, Patrick Crowley, and Claudnyse Holloman are appointed as commissioners-at-large of the State Bar of Michigan Board of Commissioners to serve three-year terms commencing on adjournment of the 2024 annual meeting of the outgoing Board of Commissioners.
Appointments to the Foreign Language Board of Review
On order of the Court pursuant to MCR 8.127(A), the following members are reappointed to the Foreign Language Board of Review for terms beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, and ending on Dec. 31, 2027.
• Hon. Marcy A. Klaus (probate court judge)
• Tyler Martinez (family law attorney)
• J. Elizabeth McClain (limited English proficient (LEP) individuals advocate)
Appointment to the Michigan Judicial Council
On order of the Court pursuant to MCR 8.128 and effective immediately, Ashish Joshi (attorney) is appointed to the Michigan Judicial Council for the remainder of a term ending on Dec. 31, 2025.