The Michigan Supreme Court has amended several provisions of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, effective January 1, 2011. The affected rules include:
- 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions
- 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
- 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
- 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal
- 3.6 Trial Publicity
- 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice
- 8.5 Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law
In addition, the Court added new Rules 2.4 (Lawyer Serving as Third-Party Neutral), 5.7 (Responsibilities Regarding Law-Related Services), and 6.6 (Nonprofit and Court-Annexed Limited Legal Services Programs).
Especially notable are the changes to 5.5, which are identical to the ABA's multi-jurisdictional practice rule, and make Michigan the 44th U.S. jurisdiction to adopt a rule providing for the multijurisdictional practice of law.
Here's the order (PDF).
The Court's action brought to a close Michigan’s evaluation and adoption of portions of the American Bar Association’s Ethics 2000 Model Rules, a process begun in 2001. The changes announced Tuesday are substantially the same as those published for comment by the Court November 24, 2009, with the exceptions of Rules 3.3 and 3.6. For a short description of how the new rules differ from those published, read on.
Omitted from the list of rules described in the November 24, 2009, order are Rules 1.5 (Fees), 1.7 (Conflicts of Interest: General Rule), and 1.8 (Conflicts of Interest: Prohibited Transactions). Rule 3.3 contains more stringent requirements than previously that a lawyer take remedial measures to remedy the offering of false evidence. The trial publicity rule represents a hybrid of the two alternatives the Court considered and pulls into the rule from the commentary a number of provisions that will give lawyers more precise guidance than does the current rule about what categories of information are permissibly disseminated. Rule 5.5 has entirely new provisions pertaining to multijurisdictional practice that will impact lawyers licensed in other states, while giving deference to MCR 8.126, the pro hac vice rule, and Rule 5(E) of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners, pertaining to special legal consultants.
