ADM File No. 2022-23
Amendment of Rule 7.306 of the Michigan Court Rules
To read this file, visit perma.cc/8VB6-GQML
ADM File No. 2017-29
Proposed Amendment of Rule 4.4 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
On order of the Court, the proposed amendment of Rule 4.4 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct having been published for comment at 501 Mich 1264 (2018), and an opportunity having been provided for comment in writing and at a public hearing, the Court declines to adopt the proposed amendment. This administrative file is closed without further action.
ADM File No. 2024-03
Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.003 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 2.003 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 2.003 Disqualification of Judge
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Procedure.
(1)-(3) [Unchanged.]
(4) If Disqualification Motion is Granted.
(a) For courts other than the Supreme Court, when a judge who is not a business court judge is disqualified, the action must be assigned to another judge of the same court, or, if one is not available, the state court administrator mustshall assign another judge.
(b) When a judge who is a business court judge is disqualified, the action must be assigned to another business court judge of the same circuit, or if one is not available, the state court administrator must assign a business court judge from a different circuit.
(b) [Relettered as (c) but otherwise unchanged.]
(E) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2024-03): The proposed amendment of MCR 2.003 would clarify the assignment procedures when a business court judge has been disqualified from a case.
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 Feb. 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. 2024-03. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2022-08
Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.206 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 7.206 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 7.206 Extraordinary Writs, Original Actions, and Enforcement Actions
(A)-(F) [Unchanged.]
(G) Petition for Review or Extension of Time for County Apportionment Plan.
(1) Petition. To obtain review of an apportionment plan as provided in MCL 45.505(5) or 46.406, or to obtain an extension of time to submit an apportionment plan under MCL 45.505(5) or 46.407, the petitioner must file with the clerk within the time limit provided by law:(a) a petition concisely stating the basis for relief and the relief sought;
(b) a copy of the apportionment plan;
(c) as may be applicable, a sworn statement from a qualified expert attesting to the expert’s opinion as to the factual basis for the petitioner’s claim that the challenged apportionment plan violates the law;
(d) a supporting brief conforming to MCR 7.212(B) and (C) to the extent possible;
(e) proof that a copy of each of the filed documents was served on the respondent, the county commission, and any other interested party; and
(f) the entry fee.
(2) Answer. A respondent or any other interested party must file with the clerk within 21 days of service of the petition:(a) an answer to the petition;
(b) a supporting brief conforming to MCR 7.212(B) and (D) to the extent possible; and
(c) proof that a copy of each of the filed documents was served on the petitioner, the county commission, and any other interested party.
(3) Preliminary Hearing. There is no oral argument on preliminary hearing of a petition. The court may deny relief, grant peremptory relief, or allow the parties to proceed to full hearing on the merits in the same manner as an appeal of right. However, if the preliminary hearing on the complaint shows that either party’s pleadings or briefs demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists that must be determined before a resolution can be reached as to whether the reapportionment violates the law, or that there is a need for discovery and the development of a factual record, the court must proceed to full hearing on the merits in the same manner as an appeal of right. If the court must proceed to full hearing under this subrule, the panel must first refer the suit to a judicial circuit to hold pretrial proceedings, conduct a hearing to receive evidence and arguments of law, and issue a written report for the panel setting forth proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proceedings before the circuit court must proceed as expeditiously as due consideration of the circuit court’s docket, facts, and issues of law requires. Following receipt of the circuit court’s report, the court of appeals clerk must certify the order allowing the case to proceed and notify the parties of the schedule for filing briefs in response to the circuit court’s report and of the date for oral argument, which must be on an expedited basis.
(4) Full Hearing. If the case is ordered to proceed to full hearing,(a) the time for filing a brief by the petitioner begins to run from the date the clerk certifies the order allowing the case to proceed;
(b) the petitioner’s brief must conform to MCR 7.212(B) and (C); and
(c) an opposing brief must conform to MCR 7.212(B) and (D).
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-08): The proposed amendment of MCR 7.206 would require the Court of Appeals to engage in certain procedures if it receives a county reapportionment challenge.
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 Feb. 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. 2022-08. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2022-48
Proposed Amendment of Canon 3 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Canon 3 of the Michigan Code of Judicial 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.]
Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Office Impartially and Diligently.
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities. Judicial duties include all the duties of office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:
A. Adjudicative Responsibilities:
(1)-(3) [Unchanged.]
(4) A judge may make reasonable efforts, consistent with the law and court rules, to facilitate the ability of all litigants, including self-represented litigants, to be fairly heard.
(4)-(14)[Renumbered as (5)-(15) but otherwise unchanged.]
B.-D. [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-48): The proposed amendment of MCJC 3 would allow a judge to make reasonable efforts to facilitate the ability of all litigants to be fairly heard.
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 Feb. 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. 2022-48. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2023-32
Amendment of Administrative Order No. 2023-2
On order of the Court, the following amendment of Administrative Order No. 2023- 2 is adopted, effective immediately.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underliningand deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Administrative Order No. 2023-2 – Independent Audit of the Judicial Tenure Commission
On June 13, 2023, the Judicial Tenure Commission announced its intention to undergo an “independent review of the racial composition of the judges about whom the Commission receives complaints, and the Commission’s dispositions of those complaints, for the period 2008 through 2022.” The Commission’s press release stated:
Though the Commission believes its case dispositions show no actual or deliberate racial disparity, the Commission recognizes that this is a very important issue and that the public will have more faith in the fairness of its decisions if their racial composition is reviewed by an independent auditor. Of course, if an independent auditor identifies an actual racial disparity in the Commission’s actions that we have overlooked and that is not explained by the choices made by the judges under investigation, the Commission certainly wants to know about that and understand the reasons for it.
However, under MCR 9.261, the files of the Judicial Tenure Commission are confidential and absolutely privileged from disclosure, effectively preventing an independent audit. Nonetheless, Const 1963, art 6, § 30 establishes the Judicial Tenure Commission and provides this Court with the authority to make rules to implement this constitutional provision and provide for confidentiality and privilege of its proceedings.
The Commission has requested that this Court authorize disclosure of otherwise confidential and privileged information to facilitate the independent audit.
Accordingly, to facilitate the independent audit that the Judicial Tenure Commission has committed to undertaking, this Court authorizes the Commission to disclose otherwise confidential and privileged information in its files only as necessary to complete the independent audit and subject to the following conditions:
(1-3) [Unchanged.]
(4) The Judicial Tenure Commission must share the results of the independent auditor’s review with the Michigan Supreme Court no later than July 31, 2025one year from the date of this order.
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2023-32): The amendment of AO 2023-2 extends the timeframe for which the independent auditor must share its results with the Michigan Supreme Court.
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.