Michigan Supreme Court public hearing set for Nov. 20

By Lee Dryden
BridgeTower Media Newswires
 
A variety of matters including the use of cellular phones in a courthouse, reinstatement after short-term lawyer suspensions, and limited scope representation in probate court are on the agenda for comment at a Nov. 20 Michigan Supreme Court public hearing.

The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. and adjourn no later than 11:30 a.m. in the Supreme Court courtroom on the sixth floor of the Michigan Hall of Justice, 925 W. Ottawa St. in Lansing.

Those who wish to address the high court will be allotted three minutes each to present their views, after which speakers may be questioned by the justices. Comments must pertain directly to an agenda item.

To reserve a place on the agenda, notify the Office of Administrative Counsel in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, 48909, or by email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov, no later than Nov. 15.

Some agenda items below include information from the MSC order or staff comments that explain the proposed changes.

• 2015-21, Amendments of MCR 3.965, 3.971, 3.972, 3.973, and 3.993. Published at 504 Mich ___ (2019).

Whether to retain the amendments that incorporate a requirement for a trial court to notify a respondent in a child protection proceeding of the right to appeal following a child’s removal from the home and the initial dispositional order, and that failure to do so may bar respondent from later challenging the court’s assumption of jurisdiction.

• 2018-23, Proposed Alternative Amendments of MCR 6.610. Published at 504 Mich ___ (2019).

Whether to adopt either of the proposed alternative amendments that would allow discovery in criminal misdemeanor proceedings in the district court.

Alternative A would create a structure similar to the federal rules (FR Crim P 16[b]) in which a defendant’s duty to provide certain discovery would be triggered only if defense counsel first requested discovery from the prosecution, and the prosecution complied. Alternative B is a proposal recommended by the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan in its comment on the original proposal published for comment in this file.

Alternative B includes a requirement that “Each party must, on request, provide the names and addresses of all lay and expert witnesses whom the party may call at trial; in the alternative, a party may provide the name of the witness and make the witness available to the other party for interview.”

• 2018-28, Proposed Amendment of LCR 2.119 for the Court of Claims. Published at 503 Mich 1352 (2019).

Whether to adopt the proposed amendment that would require a moving party to affirmatively state that he or she has sought concurrence in the relief sought on a specific date, and opposing counsel denied concurrence in the relief sought.

• 2018-30, Proposed Amendment of MCR 8.115. Published at 503 Mich 1353 (2019).

Whether to adopt the proposed amendment that would explicitly allow the use of cellular phones (as well as prohibit certain uses) in a courthouse.

The proposed amendment was submitted by the Michigan State Planning Body. It is intended to make cell phone and electronic device use policies more consistent from one court to another, and broaden the ability of litigants to use their devices in support of their court cases when possible.

• 2018-31, Proposed Amendment of Rule 2 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar of Michigan. Published at 504 Mich ___ (2019).

Whether to adopt the proposed amendment that would update and expand the rule slightly to include reference to a member’s email address among the information that must be provided by all attorneys.

• 2018-36, Proposed Amendment of MCR 3.802. Published at 504 Mich ___ (2019).

Whether to adopt the proposed amendment that would eliminate references to the “noncustodial parent” to make the rule consistent with the statute (MCL 710.51) allowing stepparent adoption when the petitioning stepparent’s spouse has joint legal custody.

• 2019-02, Proposed Amendment of MCR 9.123. Published at 504 Mich ___ (2019).

Whether to adopt the proposed amendment that would update the attorney discipline process for reinstatement after short-term suspensions and allow for abatement or modification of a condition in certain circumstances.

Proposed language states: “When a condition has been imposed in an order of discipline or in an order of reinstatement, the attorney may request an order of abatement discharging the lawyer from the obligation to comply with the condition, or an order modifying the condition. The attorney may so request either before or with the attorney’s affidavit of compliance under MCR 9.123(A) or petition for reinstatement under MCR 9.123(B). The request may be granted only if the attorney shows by clear and convincing evidence that a timely, good-faith effort has been made to meet the condition but it is impractical to fulfill the condition.”

The Attorney Discipline Board and Attorney Grievance Commission submitted the proposal jointly.

• 2019-04, Proposed Amendment of MCR 5.117. Published at 504 Mich ___ (2019).

Whether to adopt the proposed amendment that would clarify that the rules authorizing limited scope representation are explicitly applicable to cases that proceed in probate court.