Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
January 13, 2009

MSC makes its administrative conferences public

Continuing its break with past practice, the Michigan Supreme Court announced today that its administrative conferences will be public.' Chief Justice Kelly stated that "[b]eginning last week [when the justices publicly selected Kelly as chief justice], the Court now' . . . holds its administrative conferences, at which the Justices consider and vote on [administrative] matters, in public."' The Court's announcement suggests that Justice Weaver's long-stated' desire that' the Court's rule-making function be made public is being given greater consideration by the newly constituted Court.' The Court's press release for the administrative hearing and conference tomorrow can be found here.' The Court's agenda can be found here.

At tomorrow's administrative hearing, the Michigan Supreme Court will hear comments from the public on several proposed changes to the Michigan Court Rules.' ' One proposed rule change offers two alternatives for whether filing a claim of appeal tolls the one-year period for filing a late application for leave to appeal.' The alternative rules can be viewed here.

Another proposed change would give the Michigan Supreme Court authority to correct deficient briefs, to strike nonconforming briefs, and to dismiss appeals that a party has not pursued in conformity with the court rules.' Specifically, the proposed changes provide that where a party files an application for leave to appeal that does not conform to the requirements of MCR 7.302, the Court may order the party to file a supplemental brief correcting the deficiencies within a certain period and/or strike the nonconforming brief.' The rule specifically recognizes that the non-conformity may be brought to the Court's attention by motion of the opposing party.' The complete proposed rule can be viewed here.

After the hearing, the Court will hold its conference on the proposed rule changes.' The' Court' also intends to discuss two other topics:

1.' ' How the Court intends to proceed with ADM-2003-62, the proposed' revision of the Michigan Rules of Professional' Conduct--the ethical rules governing' attorneys in' Michigan.

2.' Whether the Court should keep records of which' justices are present, present by phone, and absent from administrative conferences as well as' the reasons why a justice was not present in person.

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.



+ -