BridgeTower Media Newswires
A proposed Interim Administrator Program, a new Michigan Judicial Council and mandatory submission of court case information are among recent Administrative Orders announced by the high court.
—————
Comments sought on proposed Interim Administrator Program
The Michigan Supreme Court is seeking comments on a proposal from the State Bar of Michigan that would create a new Interim Administrator Program within the bar and impose new obligations on attorneys.
Under the proposal, attorneys in private practice would be required to nominate another attorney or law firm to serve as interim administrator if the nominating attorney becomes unable to practice. The bar would confirm the nomination with the named attorney, and that attorney would acknowledge agreement.
Alternatively, an attorney could pay an annual fee — unspecified in the bar’s proposal — to ensure that in the event of death or disability, the Bar would appoint an attorney to serve as interim administrator.
An interim administrator would be eligible for compensation from the attorney’s law practice or estate. Those who participate in the Interim Administrator Program could be reimbursed through that program as a secondary source of compensation.
The court is interested in comments about the breadth of the program and its particular provisions, as well as remarks that address provisions that may go beyond the scope of authority for court rules.
For example, under proposed MCR 9.1XX(C)(2)(e), the order appointing the Interim Administrator shall toll all statutes of limitation, deadlines, time limits and return dates. But such deadlines — especially statutes of limitation — are wholly a legislative creation and arguably not within the court’s ability to change by rule.
Further, under proposed MCR 9.1XX(F), the circuit court purportedly has “jurisdiction over all of the files, records, and property of clients of the Affected Attorney, and may make any appropriate orders to protect the interest of the clients ... .” To the extent that this language could be interpreted to mean that a circuit court judge in one jurisdiction could issue an order affecting a case in another jurisdiction, it is questionable where such authority is derived.
Finally, the role of the circuit court judge is more involved under this proposal, and it would be helpful to understand whether the circuit court judges support this expanded role.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the State Court Administrator so they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201.
Comments on the proposal may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically by Aug. 1, 2021, at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov.
When filing a comment, refer to ADM File No. 2020-15. Comments will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal at Proposed & Recently Adopted Orders on Admin Matters page on the court’s website, https://courts.michigan.gov/.
—————
New Michigan Judicial Council to craft strategic plan for courts
The Michigan Supreme Court announced the immediate adoption of Rule 8.128, which creates the Michigan Judicial Council to strategically plan for the state’s judiciary. The full text of the rule is as follows:
Rule 8.128 Michigan Judicial Council
(A) Duties. There shall be a Judicial Council to plan strategically for the Michigan judicial branch, to enhance the work of the courts, and to make recommendations to the Supreme Court on matters pertinent to the administration of justice.
(B) Diversity and Inclusion. The Judicial Council shall be representative of Michigan’s diverse population and regions, ensuring and advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion.
(C) Membership
(1) The membership of the Judicial Council shall consist of 29 members as follows:
(a) The Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, who shall preside over the council as chairperson;
(b) A Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, nominated by the Chief Justice;
(c) The State Court Administrator;
(d) The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals or designee;
(e) Two judges nominated by the Michigan Judges Association;
(f) Two judges nominated by the Michigan Probate Judges Association;
(g) Two judges nominated the Michigan District Judges Association;
(h) Two judges nominated by the Association of Black Judges of Michigan;
(i) A judge nominated by the Michigan Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum;
(j) Four at-large judges;
(k) Four trial court administrators, probate or juvenile registers;
(l) Two county clerks;
(m) Three attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of Michigan;
(n) A member of the Michigan Justice for All Commission;
(o) Two members of the public who are not attorneys.
(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. No member may serve more than two consecutive terms.
(D) Other Committees, Task Forces, and Work Groups. The Judicial Council will establish such other committees, task forces, and work groups as are necessary to further the work of the Judicial Council.
(E) Meetings of Council. The Judicial Council shall meet regularly as needed to accomplish its work, but at least quarterly, at a place and on a date designated by the Chief Justice.
(F) Administration. The State Court Administrative Office shall staff the Judicial Council.
(G) Deliberations. In all of their deliberations and decisions, members of the Judicial Council shall place the welfare of the public and the judicial branch as a whole above the individual interests of a judicial district, court organization, or class of judge or employee.
(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 be reappointed to two full consecutive terms.
(I) Annual Report. The Judicial Council shall prepare an annual report on the status of judicial administration in the courts and the work of the Judicial Council.
(J) Compensation. Judicial Council members shall serve without compensation.
(K) Removal of a Member. The Supreme Court has authority to remove a Judicial Council member. The vacancy created when a member is removed shall be filled in accordance with subrule (H).
Comments on the proposal may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically by Aug. 1, at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov.
When filing a comment, refer to ADM File No. 2021-15. Comments will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal at Proposed & Recently Adopted Orders on Admin Matters page on the court’s website, https://courts.michigan.gov/.
—————
Mandatory submission of case info on the horizon
The Michigan Supreme Court is also considering adopting an administrative order that would make it mandatory for all courts to submit case information to the Judicial Data Warehouse in a uniform manner as required by SCAO.
This matter will be considered at a public hearing, but a date has not yet been set.
For two decades, the Judicial Data Warehouse, or JDW, has been a vital tool that lets users find trial court records from across the state, informs judicial decisions, enhances court administration, improves public policy through data-driven research and promotes transparency.
While almost all trial courts provide a daily or weekly feed of case-level data to the JDW, certain data elements frequently are missing or reported inconsistently by different courts. Several courts do not participate at all, which creates problematic data gaps.
In order to address these problems, it has been proposed that courts should be required to submit data in a uniform manner and across all courts. This will ensure the JDW contains uniformly reported data that will be more useful to courts, law enforcement, researchers and others.
A more complete database also will relieve courts of the requirement to submit certain reports manually or with special programming. The database is intended to be a resource for the general public about how courts in Michigan operate.
As such, all trial courts must submit all case data including nonpublic and financial records to the Judicial Data Warehouse in a format and frequency defined by the SCAO. This order replaces all existing Memoranda of Understanding between SCAO and any trial courts regarding the JDW, and shall remain in effect until further order of the court.
Comments on the proposal may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically by Aug. 1, at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov.
When filing a comment, refer to ADM File No. 2021-14. Comments will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal at Proposed & Recently Adopted Orders on Admin Matters page on the court’s website, https://courts.michigan.gov/.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
