On March 30, 9:30 a.m., in the Hall of Justice in Lansing. You will have 3 minutes each (more if a Justice engages you) to speak on the items on the agenda. Interested? You need to email the Supreme Court clerk at MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov before 5:00 p.m. Monday to get on the agenda. Feedback already submitted to the Court can be viewed on the Supreme Court's website. Here's what's up (all links are to PDFs):
1. 2004-08 Proposed Amendment of Rule 8.126 concerning pro hac vice admission. Michigan’s updated pro hac vice rule has been in place since 2008 and several changes are recommended. They include a requirement that the fee be charged for each request for pro hac vice admission, that the court that grants the motion send a copy of the order to the AGC (instead of requiring that the Michigan attorney send the copy to the AGC), that the rule specifically include an attorney’s temporary admission for arbitration proceedings, and that the fee be required to be paid before an order enters. The State Bar supports the changes.
2. 2005-11 Amendments to Canon 4 and Canon 5 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct aimed at clarifying the role judges can play in fundraising events. The State Bar's position is here.
3. 2006-38 Amendments to Subchapter 9.100 and Rules 8.110 and 8.120 recommended by the Grievance Administrator. The State Bar supports some of the changes, opposes others, and recommends various amendments to the proposal. This joint letter from the State Bar Executive Director and the Grievance Administrator describes areas of agreement and disagreement. A 121-page comparison summary is here.
4. 2007-17 Amendment to Rule 8.121 of the Michigan Court Rules to extend the limitation on contingency fees to actions or claims involving no-fault benefits. The State Bar opposes the amendment.
5. 2007-18 Amendment to Rule 2.117 to provide that an attorney-client relationship continues until a final judgment is reached and the period allowed to appeal by right has expired unless the attorney discontinued the relationship before that time, and to clarify that follow-up or ministerial actions performed by the attorney following notice of termination do not extend the attorney-client relationship. The State Bar opposes the amendment.
6. 2008-10 Amendments to Rules 6.425 and 7.210 to require a sentencing judge to outline reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines on a form the would be included with the case record, in addition to stating the reasons on the record. The State Bar opposes the amendments.
7. 2008-11 Amendment to Rule 2.507 aimed at clarifying conditions necessary for agreements to settle a case to be binding, i.e. that they must be made in open court or in writing. The State Bar's position is here.
8. 2008-32—Amendment to Rule 2.203 aimed at clarifying that a summons must be issued when a counterclaim or cross-claim is filed, and establishing an expiration date for the summons. The State Bar opposes the amendment.
9. 2010-30 New Rule 2.412 and Amendments to Rules 2.403, 2.411, and 3.216 to consolidate mediation confidentiality provisions into one rule and expand the current exceptions to mediation confidentiality, as recommended by the SCAO Mediation Confidentiality and Standards of Conduct Committee. The State Bar has deferred to the positions of the State Bar's Civil Procedure and Courts committee and Domestic Violence Committee, here and here.
Note: the first version of this post incorrectly stated that Wednesday's hearing is the first since September, 2009. It is not. Administrative public hearings have been held as recently as January of this year, although the Supreme Court website indicates hearings only through the September, 2009 date. For coverage of the hearings, visit the State Bar's Virtual Court site. It contains videos of the hearings through September 2010.
