November 25, 2024
Volume 22, Issue 44

The State Bar of Michigan will be closed November 28 & 29 in observance of the Thanksgiving holiday.

At the Court

RULE AMENDMENTS
ADM File No. 2022-25: Amendment of MCR 7.103
The amendment of MCR 7.103 requires that an appeal to circuit court be heard by a judge other than the judge that conducted the trial.
Issued: 11/20/24
Effective: 1/1/25

ADM File No. 2022-38: Amendments of MCR 2.625, 7.115, 7.219, and 7.319
The amendments of MCR 2.625, 7.115, 7.219, and 7.319: (1) require courts to stay enforcement of taxed costs while an appeal is ending or until time for filing an appeal has passed, (2) expand the timeframe for filing a bill of costs in the Court of Appeals, (3) incorporate into MCR 7.219 the Court of Appeals internal operating procedure 7.219(B) that allows, upon reversal of a Court of Appeals decision, the new prevailing party to file a new bill of costs in the Court of Appeals, and (4) include in the lists of taxable costs those costs awarded in the lower court in accordance with MCL 600.2445(4).
Issued: 11/20/24
Effective: 1/1/25

ADM File No. 2024-06: Amendment of MCR 3.306
In accordance with MCL 600.4501(2), the amendment of MCR 3.306(B)(3)(b) prohibits a court from granting leave to a private individual who is bringing a quo warranto action that relates to the offices of electors of President and Vice President of the United States.
Issued: 11/20/24
Effective: Immediately

ADM File No. 2024-33: Amendment of LCR 2.119 for the Ingham County Circuit Court
The amendment of LCR 2.119 for the Ingham County Circuit Court conforms the rule to local practice regarding motions.
Issued: 11/20/24
Effective: 1/1/25

APPOINTMENTS
ADM File No. 2024-01: Appointment of Chief Judges of the 28th Circuit Court, 84th District Court, Missaukee County Probate Court, and Wexford County Probate Court
Issued: 11/20/24
Effective: 1/1/25

ADM File No. 2024-01: Appointment of Chief Judge of the 30th Circuit Court (Ingham County)
Issued: 11/20/24
Effective: 1/1/25

At the Bar

The Board of Commissioners met on November 22, 2024 at which time the State Bar of Michigan adopted the following public policy positions:

ADM File No. 2020-08: Proposed Amendments of MCR 2.107 and 3.203
MCR 2.107(G) was adopted and simultaneously published for comment by the Court on July 26, 2021. The proposed amendment of MCR 2.107 in this order reflects an alternative proposal that would expand the use of electronic service by requiring its use unless a party opts out, as suggested by some commenters on the original proposal. The proposed amendment of MCR 3.203 clarifies the use of electronic service in domestic relations cases.
SBM Position: Support ADM File No. 2020-08 with an amendment to provide that, while parties represented by counsel should be required to opt out of electronic service, parties proceeding pro se should be required to opt in to electronic service.

ADM File No. 2021-27: Proposed Amendments of MCR 3.207 and 3.210
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.207 would: (1) clarify the pleading requirements for requesting certain ex parte orders, (2) require that an evidentiary hearing be scheduled anytime the court enters an order that may change a child’s established custodial environment, and (3) clarify the procedure following service of an ex parte order. The proposed amendment of MCR 3.210 would require courts to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to entering an order changing a child’s established custodial environment in contested cases.
SBM Position: Support ADM File No. 2021-27 with the following amendments:

  1. Strike “If a hearing date was set in the order, the court may cancel the hearing” from proposed MCR 3.207(B)(5)(a).
  2. Reword MCR 3.207(B)(6) to read as follows: “3. The ex parte order will automatically become a temporary order if you do not file a written objection or motion to modify or rescind the ex parte order. The hearing scheduled in the order will take place regardless of whether an objection or motion is filed. Even if an objection or motion is filed, the ex parte order will remain in effect and must be obeyed unless changed by a later court order."
  3. Reword MCR 3.207(B)(5)(b) as follows: “If a party files a motion to rescind or modify the ex parte order without filing an objection, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing and resolve the dispute within 21 days of the motion to rescind or modify being filed or on the hearing date specified in the ex parte order, if any.”
  4. Reword MCR 3.207(B)(1)(a) as follows: “(a) A verified motion or pleading that requests an ex parte custody or parenting time order or that requests a change of custody or parenting time must include the following information: (i) facts establishing whether the child has an established custodial environment with either parent, or both parents, or neither parent; and”

ADM File No. 2022-59: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.302
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.
SBM Position: Support ADM File No. 2022-59 with an amendment striking "after" and inserting "before" in the proposed language of MCR 6.302(G).

ADM File No. 2023-07: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.433
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.
SBM Position: Oppose.

ADM File No. 2022-51: Proposed Amendment of MCR 6.509
The proposed amendment of MCR 6.509 would clarify that defendants may file with the Court of Appeals an application for leave to appeal a trial court’s decision on: (1) a motion for relief from judgment; and (2) a timely-filed motion to reconsider an order deciding a motion for relief from judgment. Note that a separate proposal affecting MCR 6.509(A) is proposed under ADM File No. 2022-57.
SBM Position: Support.

ADM File No. 2022-57: Proposed Amendments of MCR 6.508 and 6.509
The proposed amendments of MCR 6.508 and 6.509 would: (1) require trial courts that make a partial decision on a postjudgment motion for relief to reissue the order in its entirety after it decides the remaining issues, and (2) clarify that a reissued order constitutes a decision under subchapter 6.500 of the Michigan Court Rules for purposes of filing an application for leave to appeal with the Court of Appeals. Note that a separate proposal affecting MCR 6.509(A) is proposed under ADM File No. 2022-51.
SBM Position: Support.

ADM File No. 2023-04: Proposed Amendments of MCR 7.212, 7.305, and 7.312
The proposed amendments of MCR 7.212, 7.305, and 7.312 would address the filing and timing of amicus curiae briefs. For both appellate courts, the proposal would: allow amicus curiae briefs in response to an application for leave to appeal; eliminate the motion filing fee; and expand the groups that are able to file a brief without a motion or invitation. For the Supreme Court, the proposal would also allow parties to file a response to an adverse amicus curiae brief, subject to certain timing and content requirements.
SBM Position: Support ADM File No. 2023-04 with the following amendments:

  1. eliminate the limit of 3,200 words proposed in MCR 7.305(F) and MCR 7.312(A)(2)(c);
  2. replace “in support of or in opposition to” in MCR 7.305(F) with “in response to;”  
  3. add tribal governments, the Legal Services Association of Michigan, the Michigan State Planning Body, and legal services programs that are annual grantees of the federal Legal Services Corporation or the Michigan State Bar Foundation to the list of those who are not required to file a motion for leave or receive an invitation to file an amicus brief in MCR 7.212 and 7.312.

ADM File No. 2023-25: Proposed Amendment of MRPC 1.6 and Comment
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.
SBM Position: Oppose ADM File No. 2023-25 as drafted, but support the concept.

HCR 6 (Wilson) A concurrent resolution to approve the State Officers Compensation Commission determinations.
SBM Position: Support.

NEWS
Nominations Now Open for SBM's Highest Awards
Nominations are now open for the State Bar of Michigan’s annual awards honoring outstanding service, including SBM’s highest honor, the Roberts P. Hudson Award.

Links of Interest

SBM Public Policy Resource Center
Public Acts
Michigan Supreme Court
Michigan Legislature
MCL Search Engines