––––––––––––––––––––
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
- Posted February 11, 2014
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
State Bar of Michigan opposes Senate Bill 743, asks for Michigan Supreme Court Review
The State Bar of Michigan Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to oppose Senate Bill 743 in a teleconference meeting on Feb. 6. The bill, calling for voluntary membership in the State Bar of Michigan, was introduced on Jan. 23 by state Senator Arlan Meekhof.
SBM President Brian Einhorn and Executive Director Janet Welch informed Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert P. Young Jr. and his fellow justices of this decision in a letter sent to the court on Feb. 6. The letter says that SB 743 raises questions about the operation of the State Bar as a mandatory organization that are most appropriately addressed within the judicial branch of government, pursuant to the Supreme Court's exclusive constitutional authority to establish practice and procedure for the state's legal system under Michigan Constitution Article VI, Section 5. The State Bar asks the Michigan Supreme Court to initiate a review of how the State Bar of Michigan operates within the framework of the Supreme Court of the United States' ruling in Keller v State Bar of California.
The rules of the Michigan Supreme Court direct the State Bar of Michigan to aid in promoting improvements in the administration of justice and advancements in jurisprudence, in improving relations between the legal profession and the public and in promoting the interests of the legal profession in Michigan.
"We value the reputation the State Bar has established as a national leader in pursuing these purposes for nearly eight decades," said SBM President Brian Einhorn and Executive Director Janet Welch in the letter.
"We know that our continued effectiveness depends on the confidence of this Court and our membership in our adherence to our core mission and to the constitutional boundaries defined by the Keller decision and the Michigan Supreme Court. Our decision-making in carrying out our duties to our members and the public is grounded in such adherence, and we believe that a structured conversation on this subject undertaken under the auspices of the Supreme Court will fully address the questions raised by SB 743. We hope that the Supreme Court review will strengthen and clarify the capacity of the State Bar to fulfill its mission in the decades to come."
Published: Tue, Feb 11, 2014
headlines Oakland County
- Meet the Judges
- Phishing and Smishing and Skimming and Shimming: Nessel encourages public to watch out for common scams during NFL Draft
- 56 years later, bias case is closed: Hamtramck completes new housing
- Attorneys to explain new U.S. DOL rules
- Michigan employers, local partners spotlight Gov. Whitmer’s budget recommendations and benefits for Going PRO Talent Fund
headlines National
- New Legalese: You may have heard a deepfake, but what about ‘Twiqbal’?
- From Intake to Outcome: An in-house lawyer’s guide to matter management solutions
- 2 BigLaw firms in merger talks that could produce 1,600-lawyer firm with top 50 revenue
- Send in the paralegals
- Lawyer reprimanded after mistakenly emailing opposing counsel with plan to avoid judge’s call
- ‘I don’t play well’ judge who threatened to track down, jail misbehaving litigant gets tossed from case