Michigan Administrative Orders

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1968-2
JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION

Directed to State Bar of Michigan:
The State Bar shall publish in its journal a notice to all members that they may 
nominate judges and practicing attorneys who are not judges from among whom the 
membership will elect one judge and two attorneys as members of the judicial tenure 
commission. Nominating petitions, available at the State Bar office, will require the 
signature of 50 attorneys in good standing, and must be filed with the State Bar by a 
determined deadline (i.e., 30 days after publication). 
In the event two nominations for each position are not received by the petition 
method, the board of commissioners shall thereupon nominate up to that number. 
Within 10 days after the nomination of candidates therefor, the State Bar shall cause 
to be mailed to each member a ballot containing the names of the nominees divided 
into two categories, 
(1) all judges nominated, 
(2) all nonjudges nominated, 
and space for write-in candidates. 
The ballots shall be returned to the office of the State Bar of Michigan on or before (a 
date certain). Five tellers selected by the board of commissioners shall meet at the 
office of the State Bar on(a date certain), to tally the ballots. The judge receiving the 
highest number of votes, and the two nonjudges receiving the highest number of 
votes shall be declared elected. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1969-4
It appearing upon repeal of PA 1939, No 165, that jurisdiction to hear petitions to test 
the recovery of persons committed as criminal sexual psychopaths under the 
provisions of said act remains unresolved, that proceedings in various courts wherein 
relief has been sought have been dismissed with the result that a situation has 
continued for several months wherein the proper forum for reviewing the propriety of 
continued custody of persons committed under the provisions of said law remains in 
question, that protection of the basic rights of such persons and the uninterrupted 
administration of justice requires designation of a proper forum for hearing said 
matters until such time as the legislature shall provide clarification, now therefore, 
pursuant to the provisions of Constitution 1963, art 6, 13, and PA 1961, No 236, 601, 
the revised judicature act.[MCLA 600.601 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev 28.967[7])] 
It is ordered, that until such time as there is further legislative clarification of 
jurisdiction of proceedings for testing recovery of persons committed under the 
provisions of said PA 1939, No 165, as amended [See MCLA 780.501-780.509 (Stat 
Ann 1967 Cum Supp 28.967[1]-28.967[9]. - Reporter. 
Jurisdiction shall continue and proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the 
provisions of section 7 of said act, CL 1948, 780.507, as amended by PA 1952, No 58 
(Stat Ann 1954 Rev 28.967[7]). 
This order shall constitute a rule of the Supreme Court within Constitution 1963, art 
6, 13, and shall be effective as of August 1, 1968, the date of effect of the repeal of 
PA 1939, No 165, as amended. 
On order of the Court, Administrative Order No. 1969-4 is rescinded, effective 
immediately.
On order of the Court, Administrative Order No. 1969-4 is reinstated and the Court's 
order of June 4, 2004, rescinding Administrative Order 1969-4 is vacated, effective 
immediately.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1972-1
It is ordered that the assignment of a judge to serve as a judge of the probate court 
of a county in which he was not elected or appointed as a probate judge shall be 
made only by order of this Court or through the Court Administrator, and no judge 
shall so serve unless assigned in conformity herewith. This shall not apply to a judge 
of the circuit court for such county as provided for by MCLA 701.11. 
It is further ordered that this order be given immediate effect. 
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1972-2
It appearing to the Court that the Defender's Office of the Legal Aid and Defender 
Association of Detroit is a nonprofit organization providing counsel to indigent 
defendants in the Wayne Circuit Court and the Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit, 
and that such method of providing counsel to indigent defendants should be 
encouraged for the efficient administration of criminal justice; and 
It further appearing that assignments from Recorder's Court have been irregular, 
sometimes involving too many such assignments and sometimes too few; 
Now, therefore, it is ordered that, from the date of this order until the further order of 
this Court, the Presiding Judge of Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit shall assign 
as counsel, on a weekly basis, the Defender's Office of the Legal Aid and Defender 
Association of Detroit in twenty-five percent of all cases wherein counsel are 
appointed for indigent defendants. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1972-4
[Rescinded by Administrative Order 2003-3]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1973-1
It appearing to the Court that there is sufficient necessity to furnish legal aid, on a 
case-to-case basis, to litigants in summary proceeding actions commenced in the 
Landlord-Tenant Division of Common Pleas Court and that existing standards of 
indigency preclude eligibility of said litigants for legal assistance, now therefore it is 
ordered, effective from date of this order until further order of the Court, that all 
parties in summary proceeding actions who cannot afford an attorney in the 
proceedings shall be eligible for legal assistance from the legal aid clinics in the nature 
and manner administered under GCR 1963,921; Provided however, that no plaintiff 
shall qualify for said services if he has a monetary interest in more than one income 
unit of real property. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1977-1
Proposed GCR and DCR 516.8, which would direct the use of the Standard Criminal 
Jury Instructions under certain conditions, were published in the State Bar Journal in 
April, 1976, for comment by the bench and bar. Comments have been received from 
proponents and opponents of the concept of pattern instructions. The intelligent 
concerns expressed by both sides have caused the Court to conclude that it would be 
provident to observe and evaluate actual trial use of the instructions over a 
substantial period before making the decision regarding implementation of use of the 
instructions by court rule. 
Accordingly all members of the bench and bar are urged to use the instructions. Such 
use, particularly in the manner proposed in the rules published in the April 1976 Bar 
Journal, would provide a basis for communicating to the Court advantages or 
disadvantages encountered in their use. Comments based on such use are invited 
immediately, and on a continuing basis. It is the intention of the Court to readdress
the question of implementation of the Standard Criminal Jury Instructions by court 
rule after approximately one year's experience has been obtained. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1978-4
A lawyer may on behalf of himself, his partner or associate, or any other lawyer 
affiliated with him or his firm, use or participate in the use of any form of public 
communication that is not false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive. Except for DR 
2-103 and DR 2-104, disciplinary rules in conflict with this order are suspended for a 
period of one year. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1978-5
To assist the Supreme Court in evaluating the Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, 
every trial judge is requested during the four-month period beginning August 1, 1978, 
at the conclusion of every criminal case tried to a jury, to dictate to the court reporter 
a statement (outside the presence of the jury, counsel and the parties) of the offense 
or offenses covered by the instructions; the extent to which he used the Standard 
Criminal Jury Instructions; if he did not use them, why he did not; and any additional 
comments he may care to make to assist the Supreme Court in evaluating those 
instructions and in considering whether they should be made obligatory in the sense 
that the Standard Civil Jury Instructions are generally required to be given. The 
statement is not considered part of the record on appeal. The court reporter shall 
forward the statement to Donald Ubell, Chief Commissioner of the Supreme Court, 
within two weeks after the judge instructs the jury. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1979-4
On order of the Court, pursuant to the power of superintending control, Const 1963, 
art VI, § 4, and MCL 600.904; MSA 27A.904, empowering the Court to provide for the 
organization, government and membership of the State Bar of Michigan, and to adopt 
rules and regulations concerning the conduct and activities of the State Bar of 
Michigan and the investigation and examination of applicants for admission to the bar, 
the Board of Law Examiners is ordered forthwith to require that any applicant for 
admission to the State Bar of Michigan by examination be fingerprinted to enable the 
State Bar Committee on Character and Fitness to determine whether the applicant 
has a record of criminal convictions in jurisdictions other than Michigan. The Board of 
Law Examiners and the State Bar Committee on Character and Fitness are authorized 
to exchange fingerprint data with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Identification 
Division. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1981-5
To the judges of the circuit court: 
On October 29, 1981, the Court adopted new juvenile court rule 15, which provides 
that effective January 1, 1982, probate court orders terminating parental rights under 
the juvenile code are appealable to the court of appeals rather than to the circuit 
court. To facilitate disposition of the appeals of orders pending in the circuit court on 
December 31, 1981, each circuit judge is directed to:
(1) insofar as possible, expedite the consideration of pending appeals from orders 
terminating parental rights under the juvenile code; and 
(2) on July 1, 1982, and every 6 months thereafter, file a report with the chief 
justice listing each such appeal that remains pending, including a statement of the 
reasons the appeal has not been concluded. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1981-6
Directed to the clerk of the court of appeals and the clerk of this Court: 
On order of the Court, it appearing that there is a need to expedite consideration of 
appeals terminating parental rights under the juvenile code, the clerk of the court of
appeals and of this Court are directed to give priority to such appeals in scheduling 
them for submission to their respective courts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1981-7
Pursuant to 1978 PA 620, MCL 780.711-780.719; MSA 28.1114(101)-28.1114(109), 
the Appellate Defender Commission submitted to this Court regulations governing a 
system for appointment of appellate counsel for indigents in criminal cases and 
minimum standards for indigent criminal appellate defense services. The Court has 
considered the submissions and after due consideration we approve them. However, 
the operation of the system and enforcement of the standards pursuant to the system 
requires that the Legislature appropriate funds necessary to implement the system. 
When funds sufficient to operate the system are appropriated, this Court will 
promulgate an administrative order implementing the system and requiring 
adherence to it. 
The approved regulations governing the system for appointment of appellate counsel 
for indigents in criminal cases, together with the commentary of the Appellate 
Defender Commission are as follows: 
Introduction by the commission: In order to meet its charge under MCL 780.711 et 
seq.; MSA 28.1114(101) et seq., to design an appointment system and develop 
minimum performance standards, the State Appellate Defender Commission, seeking 
the broadest possible input, established an advisory committee, which met during 
1979 and developed a set of initial proposals. After review by the commission, the 
proposals were circulated among the bar, presented at public hearings, further refined 
on the basis of the advice received, and passed on to the Supreme Court for its 
review, revision, and approval. The commission comments, which follow the sections 
of the regulations and standards, are designed to briefly present some of the thinking 
behind the regulations and standards as distilled from these sources. 
Section 1. Establishment of the Office of the Appellate Assigned Counsel Administrator 
(1) The Appellate Defender Commission shall establish an Appellate Assigned Counsel 
Administrator's Office which shall be coordinated with but separate from the State 
Appellate Defender Office. The duty of this office shall be to compile and maintain a 
statewide roster of attorneys eligible and willing to accept criminal appellate defense 
assignments and to engage in activities designed to enhance the capacity of the 
private bar to render effective assistance of appellate counsel to indigent defendants. 
(2) An appellate assigned counsel administrator shall be appointed by and serve at 
the pleasure of the Appellate Defender Commission. 
(3) The appellate assigned counsel administrator shall:
(a) be an attorney licensed to practice law in this state, 
(b) take and subscribe the oath required by the constitution before taking office, 
(c) perform duties as hereinafter provided, and 
(d) not engage in the practice of law or act as an attorney or counselor in a court 
of this state except in the exercise of his duties under these rules. 
(4) The appellate assigned counsel administrator and supporting personnel shall be 
considered to be court employees and not to be classified civil service employees. 
(5) The salaries of the appellate assigned counsel administrator and supporting 
personnel shall be established by the Appellate Defender Commission. 
(6) The appellate assigned counsel administrator and supporting personnel shall be 
reimbursed for their reasonable actual and necessary expenses by the state treasurer 
upon the warrant of the state treasurer. 
(7) Salaries and expenses attributable to the office of the appellate assigned counsel 
administrator shall be paid out of funds available for those purposes in accordance 
with the accounting laws of this state. The auditor general, under authority of 
Michigan Const 1963, art 4, §53, shall perform audits utilizing the same policies and 
criteria that are used to audit executive branch agencies. 
(8) Within appropriations provided by law, the Appellate Defender Commission shall 
provide the office of the appellate assigned counsel administrator with suitable space 
and equipment at such locations as the commission considers necessary. 
Commission Comment: MCL 780.711 et seq.; MSA 28.1114(101) et seq., mandates 
development of a mixed system of appellate defense representation containing both 
public defender and private assigned counsel components. The assigned counsel 
component is to be structured around a statewide roster of private attorneys, which 
the Appellate Defender Commission is to compile and maintain. The commission as an 
unpaid policy-making body must delegate the performance of ongoing tasks. Since 
establishing and administering the newly authorized roster is a large, permanent job, 
the first issue addressed is the organizational entity to which responsibility for the 
roster should be delegated.
Two administrative models for mixed systems are widely recognized and approved. 
The defender-administered model makes supervision of the assigned counsel panel a 
function of the defender office and is currently used in some states which have 
statewide trial defender offices. The independently administered model makes each 
component of the system autonomous while encouraging coordination of training and 
support services. See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice (2d ed, 1980), 5-1.2 (ABA 
Standards); National Study Commission on Defense Services, Guidelines for Legal 
Defense Systems in the United States (National Legal Aid and Defender Association, 
1976), pp 124-135 (hereafter nlada); Report of the Defense Services Committee, 57 
Mich St B J 242 (March 1978), recommendation 9d, p 260; Goldberg / Lichtman, 
Guide to Establishing a Defender System (May 1978), pp 71-79.
The independently administered model was perceived to be most compatible with the 
statute and the desires of private attorneys. It promotes the independence of 
assigned attorneys from the defender office and provides them with an administration 
which can focus exclusively on their special needs. It nonetheless permits the efficient 
sharing of such resources as training materials, information retrieval systems and 
supportive services through the coordinating efforts of the Appellate Defender 
Commission to which both components are ultimately responsible. 
Section 2. Duties of the appellate assigned counsel administrator.
The appellate assigned counsel administrator, with such supporting staff as the 
commission deems appropriate, shall:
(1) After reasonable notice has been given to the members of the State Bar of 
Michigan, compile a roster of attorneys eligible under §4 of these regulations and 
willing to accept appointments to serve as appellate counsel for indigent criminal 
defendants.
(a) The roster shall be updated semiannually and circulated among all 
probate, circuit, and appellate courts of the state. It shall also be provided, on 
request, to any interested party. 
(b) The roster shall appear in two parts. Part one shall contain an 
alphabetized listing by name of all attorneys in the state who are eligible and 
willing to accept criminal appellate assignments. Part two shall be subdivided 
according to the circuits in which the attorneys' primary practices are 
maintained and shall contain the following information regarding each 
attorney: name, firm's name, business address, business telephone, and level 
of assignments for which the attorney is eligible. 
(2) Place in the issue of the Michigan Bar Journal to be published after the results 
of the bar examinations have been released an announcement specifying the 
procedure and eligibility criteria for placement on the assigned counsel roster. 
(3) Distribute by November 1 of every second year to all attorneys on the roster a 
standard renewal application containing appropriate questions regarding 
education and experience obtained during the preceding two years and notice that 
the completed application must be forwarded to the administrator's office within 
30 days.
(a) The eligibility level of every attorney on the list shall be reviewed every 
second year based on the information contained in the renewal application. 
(b) Where a renewal application has not been filed or reveals deficiencies in 
complying with any requirement for continuing eligibility, the administrator 
shall notify the affected attorney in writing of such deficiencies. The names of 
all attorneys who fail to correct deficiencies in their continuing eligibility within 
60 days after the issuance of notice shall be removed from the roster, except 
that the administrator shall have the discretion to extend the deadline for 
correcting deficiencies by an additional 60 days where good cause is shown. 
Such extensions shall be requested and granted only in writing and shall 
include a summary of the pertinent facts. 
(4) Notify all recipients of the roster of any change in the eligibility of any 
attorney within 20 days after the date on which a change occurs. Publication of a 
semiannual roster which reflects such changes within the time specified shall 
constitute adequate notice for purposes of this provision. 
(5) Receive and take appropriate action as hereafter set forth regarding all 
correspondence forwarded by judges, defendants, or other interested parties 
about any attorney on the roster. 
(6) Maintain a file for each case in which private counsel is appointed which shall 
contain:
(i) the order of appointment, 
(ii) the cover page and table of contents of all briefs and memorandums filed 
by defense counsel, 
(iii) counsel's voucher for fees, and 
(iv) a case summary which shall be completed by counsel on forms provided 
by the administrator and which shall contain such information about filing 
dates, oral arguments, case disposition, and other pertinent matters as the 
administrator requires for statistical purposes. 
(7) Forward to the Legal Resources Project copies of all briefs filed by assigned 
counsel for possible placement in a centralized brief bank. 
(8) Select an attorney to be appointed for an appeal when requested to do so by 
an appellate court or by a local designating authority pursuant to §3(4). 
(9) Compile data regarding the fees paid to assigned counsel and take steps to 
promote the payment of reasonable fees which are commensurate with the 
provision of effective assistance of appellate counsel. 
(10) Provide, on request of an assigned attorney or an appointing authority, 
information regarding the range of fees paid within the state to assigned counsel 
or to expert witnesses and investigators who have been retained by counsel with 
the prior approval of the trial court. On the request of both the attorney and the 
appointing authority, the administrator may arbitrate disputes about such fees in 
particular cases according to prevailing local standards. 
(11) Take steps to promote the development and delivery of support services to 
appointed counsel. 
(12) Present to the commission within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year an 
annual report on the operation of the assigned counsel system which shall include 
an accounting of all funds received and disbursed, an evaluation of the costeffectiveness of the system, and recommendations for improvement. 
(13) Perform other duties in connection with the administration of the assigned 
counsel system as the commission shall direct. 
Commission Comment: The appellate assigned counsel administrator's duties 
described in §2 go beyond the performance of ministerial tasks. Other functions 
include directing focus on efficient systems for delivery of services, adequate support 
services and other matters of concern to appellate practitioners. The eligibility 
requirements for the roster are intended to be a vehicle for upgrading as well as 
organizing the services of private assigned counsel. It is also important, however, 
that private attorneys who are willing to maintain their eligibility for the roster benefit 
from an organizational structure dedicated to rationalizing and improving the 
conditions under which they receive, perform, and are compensated for criminal 
appellate assignments. The view that the director of the assigned counsel system 
must be a competent criminal defense attorney as well as a sensitive administrator is 
widely shared. ABA Standards, 5-2.1; nlada,pp 236-239; Guide to Establishing a 
Defender System,
Subsections 2(1)-(4) specify the mechanics of compiling and circulating a roster 
which is both current and convenient. The semiannual notice and updating provisions 
are designed especially for new lawyers. Those who pass each bar examination will 
see the notice in the bar journal in time to seek placement on a semiannual roster. 
Eligible attorneys may join, withdraw, or be removed from the list at anytime. 
Subsection 2(5) recognizes that once an institutional entity with overall responsibility 
for assigned counsel exists, it will become the recipient of comments requiring a 
response. This subsection also reflects a commitment to passive rather than active 
review of attorneys' performance. Therefore, while the administrator is nowhere 
charged with overseeing the content of assigned counsel's work on a regular basis, he 
or she is directed to act when substantive problems come to light. Appropriate action 
may range from writing a letter of inquiry or clarification to removing an attorney 
from the roster in accordance with the due process safeguards specified in §4. See 
ABA Standards, 5-2.2 and accompanying commentary. 
Subsection 2(6) requires the administrator to collect such information as is needed to 
promote the goals of the assigned counsel system without unduly duplicating the 
tasks performed by other entities. The items listed in subsections (6)(i)-(iv) are 
adequate to inform the administrator that a case has been assigned, work is ongoing, 
and a case has been closed. Tracking of all pleadings in each case for timeliness is not 
necessary since such oversight is already provided by the courts. Should additional 
information be needed regarding a particular case, it can be obtained from the 
appropriate court file. The costly and time-consuming handling of excess paperwork is 
thus eliminated. On the other hand, the completion of uniform summaries after cases 
have been closed is a convenient way for the administrator to gather data on the 
operation of the system as a whole. Such data has not been collected and analyzed to 
date. 
Subsection (7) makes the administrator's office the conduit for assigned counsel's 
contributions to the Legal Resources Project's brief bank. The brief bank currently 
serves assigned counsel but primarily contains pleadings prepared by the State 
Appellate Defender's staff attorneys. By performing this pass-through role, the 
administrator's office will have a ready means of collecting the items mentioned in 
subsection (6)(ii). 
Subsection (8) functions are fully discussed in the commentary to §3. 
Subsections (9) and (10) reflect the commission's grave concern about the adequacy 
of current assigned counsel fees. Quality representation is inevitably tied to 
reasonable compensation. Low fees make it economically unattractive for competent 
attorneys to seek assignments and expend all the time and effort a case may require,
and economically tempting to accept an excessive number of assignments in order to 
maintain a desirable income. Flat fees per case discourage attorneys from 
undertaking certain responsibilities, such as client visits or oral arguments, since they 
will be paid the same amount regardless of the work done. 
While the commission recognized that specific suggestions regarding fees were 
outside the scope of its mandate, it also recognized that setting minimum 
performance standards without addressing the issue of compensation is unrealistic. 
Similar views have been expressed by others. See ABA Standards, 5-2.4; Report of 
the Defense Services Committee, recommendation 5, p 249; nlada, pp 271-275. In 
addition, over half of the Court of Appeals judges responding to a questionnaire felt 
that increased fees would significantly enhance the quality of indigent defense 
representation. Some judges suggested rates believed to be substantially above those 
now being paid. Therefore, the commission included among the administrator's 
enumerated duties the active representation of the interests of assigned counsel and 
their clients in securing reasonable compensation for assigned counsel.
In subsection (10) the term "arbitrate" was substituted for the originally proposed 
term "mediate" at the State Bar's request. 
Subsection (11) addresses counsel's need for support services in such areas as legal 
research, factual investigation, expert consultations and witnesses, and prison inmate 
problems. Some of these needs are already being filled by the Legal Resources 
Project and the State Appellate Defender Office. It is anticipated that close 
cooperation between the assigned counsel and defender components will lead to the 
development of additional shared services as well as continuing legal education 
programs. See ABA Standards, 5-1.4. 
Section 3. Selection of Assigned Counsel.
(1) The judges of each circuit or group of voluntarily combined circuits shall appoint a 
local designating authority who shall be responsible for the selection of assigned 
appellate counsel from a rotating list and shall perform such other tasks in connection 
with the operation of the list as may be necessary at the trial court level. The 
designating authority may not be a judge, prosecutor or member of the prosecutor's 
staff, public defender or member of the public defender's staff, or any attorney in 
private practice who currently accepts trial or appellate criminal assignments within 
the jurisdiction. Circuits which have contracted with an attorney or group of attorneys 
to provide representation on appeal for indigent defendants must comply with these 
regulations within one year after implementation by the Supreme Court. 
(2) Each local designating authority shall compile a list of attorneys eligible and willing 
to accept criminal appellate assignments as indicated on the statewide roster. In 
order to receive appellate assignments from a trial court, an attorney's name must 
appear on that circuit's local list. The local lists shall be compiled in the following 
manner:
(a) The name of each attorney appearing on the statewide roster who has 
identified the circuit in question as his or her circuit of primary practice shall 
automatically be placed on the local list. 
(b) The name of each attorney appearing on the statewide roster who submits a 
written request to the local designating authority shall also be placed on the local 
list. 
(c) The name "State Appellate Defender Office" shall be placed in every fourth 
position on each local list. 
(3) On receiving notice from a trial judge that an indigent defendant has requested 
appellate counsel, the local designating authority shall select the attorney to be 
assigned by rotating the local list in the following manner:
(a) The opportunity for appointment shall be offered to the attorney whose name 
appears at the top of the list unless that attorney must be passed over for cause. 
(b) When the attorney accepts the appointment or declines it for reasons other 
than those hereafter specified as "for cause," the attorney's name shall be rotated 
to the bottom of the list. 
(c) When an attorney's name is passed over for cause, his or her name shall 
remain at the top of the list. 
(d) An attorney's name must be passed over for cause in any of the following 
circumstances:
(i) The crime of which the defendant has been convicted carries a possible life 
sentence or a statutory maximum sentence exceeding 15 years and the 
attorney is qualified only at Level I as described in § 4(3) of these regulations. 
(ii) The attorney represented the defendant at trial or plea and no exception 
for continued representation as specified in §3(8) is to be made. 
(iii) Representation of the defendant would create a conflict of interest for the 
attorney. Conflicts of interest shall be deemed to exist between codefendants 
whether they were jointly or separately tried. Codefendants may, however, be 
represented by the same attorney if they express a preference for such 
representation under §3(7) of these regulations, provided that there is no 
apparent conflict of interest. 
(iv) The attorney did not represent the defendant at trial or plea and an 
exception for continued representation by trial counsel as specified in §3(8) is 
to be made. 
(v) The defendant's request for an attorney on the list who is neither trial 
counsel nor next in order for appointment is to be honored pursuant to §3(7). 
(vi) The appeal to be assigned is from an habitual offender conviction and the 
designating authority, pursuant to §3(9), desires to select the attorney 
assigned to appeal the underlying conviction. 
(e) When an attorney is passed over for cause under subsections 3(d)(i), (ii), or 
(iii), the local designating authority shall continue systematic rotation of the list 
until reaching the name of an attorney willing and able to accept the appointment. 
(f) When an attorney is passed over for cause under subsections 3(d)(iv), (v), or 
(vi) and an attorney whose name appears other than at the top of the list is 
selected, on accepting the appointment the latter attorney's name shall be rotated 
to the bottom of the list. 
(g) The local designating authority shall maintain records which reflect all 
instances where attorneys have been passed over and the reasons therefor. 
(4) Where a complete rotation of the local list fails to produce the name of an 
attorney willing and able to accept appointment in a particular case, the local 
designating authority shall refer the case to the appellate assigned counsel 
administrator for assignment. 
(5) After selecting an attorney to be assigned in a particular case, the local 
designating authority shall obtain an order of appointment from the appropriate trial 
judge and shall forward copies of this order to the attorney named therein, the 
defendant, and the appellate assigned counsel administrator. 
(6) All assignments other than those made to the State Appellate Defender Office 
shall be considered personal to the individual attorney named in the order of 
appointment and shall not be attributed to a partnership or firm. 
(7) When advising defendants of their right to assigned counsel on appeal pursuant to 
GCR 1963, 785.11, trial judges shall explain that the defendant may indicate on the 
written request for the appointment of counsel a preference for a particular attorney. 
Trial judges shall further explain that the defendant's preference is not controlling and 
that the eligibility and willingness of the desired attorney to accept appellate 
assignments are controlling. When the defendant expresses a preference for counsel 
whose name appears on the local list, the local designating authority shall attempt to 
honor it. 
(8) When the defendant specifically requests the appointment of his or her trial 
attorney for purposes of appeal and the trial attorney is otherwise eligible and willing 
to accept the assignment, the defendant shall be advised by the trial judge of the 
potential consequences of continuous representation. If the defendant thereafter 
maintains a preference for appellate representation by trial counsel, the advice given 
and the defendant's waiver of the opportunity to receive new counsel on appeal shall 
be by waiver on the record or by written waiver placed in the court file. 
(9) Where a designating authority treats an habitual offender conviction as a separate 
assignment, such an assignment may be given to the attorney handling the appeal of 
the underlying conviction. 
Commission Comment: The procedures for utilizing the statewide roster which are 
outlined in this section reflect a number of significant policy decisions. Foremost is the 
legislature's rejection of the ad hoc system of appointing counsel. This method, which 
involves the random selection by trial judges of attorneys who happen to be available, 
has been universally criticized for offering no control over the quality of 
representation, no basis for organizing and training a private defense bar, and no 
barriers to reliance on patronage or discrimination as selection criteria. See, for 
instance, ABA Standards, 5-2.1. MCL 780.711-780.719 meets these criticisms by 
requiring the selection of counsel from a roster of attorneys screened for eligibility 
and willingness to serve.
One incident of the ad hoc system which has been particularly troublesome in the 
appellate context is the practice of having the trial judge in the case select the 
defendant's representative on appeal. Since claims on appeal frequently allege legal 
error or abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, assigned counsel are put in 
the delicate position of having to criticize their "employer." Trial judges face the 
temptation of choosing attorneys willing to be uncritical. Defendants naturally 
question whether their interests are being vigorously protected. For detailed critiques 
see ABA Standards, 5-1.3; nlada, p 142; Report of the Defense Services Committee, 
recommendation 9a, p 260. 
MCL 780.712(6); MSA 28.1114(102)(6) states: "The appointment of criminal 
appellate defense services for indigents shall be made by the trial court from the 
roster provided by the commission or shall be referred to the office of the state 
appellate defender." The commission concluded that a significant difference exists 
between "appointment by the trial court" and "selection by the trial judge." It 
therefore suggested a system whereby selection of appellate attorneys from the 
roster would be made by nonjudicial personnel according to standardized procedures. 
Once designated, the attorney would still be appointed by the trial court, as opposed, 
for instance, to an appellate court. This method conforms to the legislative framework 
while avoiding potential conflicts for lawyers and judges alike. It has the added 
advantage of efficiency. Delegation of the selection process to a single designating 
authority in each circuit or in voluntarily combined circuits will relieve judges of what 
should be a largely ministerial task and will provide a centralized means of using the 
roster in multi-judge circuits.
Separate use by each circuit of the entire roster obviously would be cumbersome. 
Moreover, lawyers and judges would presumably be dissatisfied with a system that 
regularly matched attorneys and courts which are hundreds of miles apart. On the 
other hand, subdividing the roster into arbitrary geographical sections would preclude 
an attorney from seeking assignments in any circuit he or she chose. These 
competing concerns are both met by having shorter local lists drawn from the 
statewide roster in a manner which leaves to the attorney the choice of which and 
how many lists include his or her name. The commission assumed that normal laws of 
supply and demand would assure an adequate distribution of eligible counsel among 
the circuits. See ABA Standards, 5-2.2; nlada,pp 239-240. 
Simplicity and evenhandedness in the allocation of cases to private counsel is assured 
by automatically rotating the local list with limited exceptions for cause. The 
commission's rotation scheme parallels those suggested in numerous published 
reports. ABA Standards, 5-2.3; nlada, p 241; Guide to Establishing a Defender 
System, pp 82-83. Rotation has the inherent side effect of limiting the number of 
assignments available to any one attorney, and the commission chose not to adopt 
any additional measures for controlling caseload size. Any numerical limitation on the 
number of appellate assignments would be difficult to enforce and would be inevitably 
arbitrary since it could not account for the remainder of a private attorney's practice.
Exceptions to strict rotation were limited to those enumerated in order to avoid 
reintroducing the kind of discretionary decision-making rotation is meant to eliminate. 
Two of these exceptions bear special mention. In general, trial counsel should not 
represent defendants on appeal since, like the trial judges, their performance is 
subject to review. While continuous representation by trial counsel may be preferred 
by some defendants and be desirable in some cases, it is presumptively disfavored 
unless the defendant makes an intelligent waiver of the right to a new attorney. 
Defendants considering such a waiver should therefore be advised that an appellate 
attorney's role includes identifying errors to which trial counsel may have failed to 
object and errors made by trial counsel in the first instance. If such errors exist, trial 
counsel may find it difficult to perceive them or to assert them most effectively on
appeal. This view comports with those expressed in Report of the Defense Services 
Committee, recommendation 9b, p 260, and nlada, p 352. 
Another exception is meant to allow consideration of a defendant's preference for 
particular appellate counsel. While the desired attorney would have to be otherwise 
willing and eligible to accept the assignment, there is no reason not to accommodate 
the defendant's choice when possible. But for their indigency the defendants involved 
would have complete freedom in selecting their own attorney. Minimizing to the 
extent possible disparities among defendants which result from differences in financial 
status is a concern which has also been addressed by other groups. See Report of the 
Defense Services Committee, recommendation 2, alternative F, p 245, and nlada, pp 
477, 481-484. 
Section 4. Attorney Eligibility for Assignments.
(1) Attorneys who wish to be considered for appointment as appellate counsel for 
indigent defendants shall file an application with the assigned counsel administrator. 
Based on the information contained in the application, eligible attorneys will be 
identified in the statewide roster as qualified for assignments at either Level I or Level 
II. 
(2) All applicants who are members in good standing of the State Bar of Michigan and 
who:
(a) have been counsel of record in at least six or more appeals of felony 
convictions in Michigan or federal courts during the three years immediately 
preceding the date of application, or 
(b) in exceptional circumstances, have acquired comparable experience as 
determined in the discretion of the Appellate Defender Commission, shall be 
designated as Level II and may accept appointments to represent indigent 
defendants convicted of any felony and juveniles appealing their waiver decisions 
regarding any felony. 
(3) All applicants who are members in good standing of the State Bar of Michigan who 
have not been designated Level II attorneys shall be designated as Level I. A Level I 
attorney may not be appointed to represent a defendant on appeal if the crime of 
which the defendant was convicted carries a possible life sentence or a statutory
maximum sentence exceeding 15 years or, similarly, on appeal of juvenile waiver 
decisions where the maximum possible sentence for the felony charged is a life 
sentence or a statutory maximum exceeding 15 years. 
(4) A Level I attorney shall be designated as Level II if the attorney has been counsel 
of record in at least two appeals of felony convictions within an 18-month period. 
(5) Attorneys who are employed full time by the State Appellate Defender Office at or 
above the status of assistant defender need not individually prove their qualifications 
as Level II attorneys in order to perform the duties of their employment and may not 
individually appear on the statewide roster as eligible for accepting assignments 
during the course of their employment at the State Appellate Defender Office. 
(6) In addition to demonstrating eligibility for a particular level of practice, attorneys 
who wish to maintain their names on the roster shall, by the filing of an application, 
agree to comply with the following regulations:
(a) Each attorney shall meet and shall strive to exceed the Minimum Standards 
for Indigent Criminal Appellate Defense Services approved by the Supreme Court 
and adopted by the Appellate Defender Commission. 
(b) Each Level II attorney shall demonstrate continued participation in the field of 
criminal appellate practice by appearing as counsel of record in two felony appeals 
during the two years immediately preceding each eligibility renewal statement. 
(c) Each attorney, in each case to which he or she is assigned as appellate 
counsel, shall timely forward to the assigned counsel administrator copies of the 
following:
(i) all briefs and memorandums filed in the defendant's behalf, 
(ii) his or her voucher for fees, 
(iii) a completed case summary as described in §2(6). 
(d) Each attorney shall file an eligibility renewal statement as required by §2(3) of 
these regulations within 30 days after receipt of the appropriate forms from the 
appellate assigned counsel administrator. 
(e) Each attorney shall respond promptly to notice from the appellate assigned 
counsel administrator that defects in the attorney's eligibility exist or that 
complaints about the attorney's performance have been received. Deficiencies in 
eligibility must be corrected within 60 days subject to the grant in writing of one 
60-day extension by the administrator for good cause shown. 
(f) Each attorney shall complete an educational program in criminal appellate 
advocacy to be prepared by the administrator and approved by the Supreme 
Court. 
(7) Pursuant to §3(2)(a) and (b) each attorney on the statewide roster will 
automatically be placed on the local list of the circuit he or she has designated for 
primary practice and may, in addition, request placement on the local lists of his or 
her choice. 
(8) The name of an attorney may be removed from the roster by the administrator for 
failure to comply with the preceding regulations. The administrator must give the 
affected attorney 60 days' notice that removal from the roster is contemplated. The 
attorney shall have a de novo appeal of right from the administrator's decision to the 
Appellate Defender Commission. If the right to appeal is exercised within the 60-day 
notice period, removal from the roster shall be stayed pending decision by the 
commission. The administrator's recommendations to the commission and the 
commission's findings shall be in writing. 
(9) Any attorney whose name is removed from the roster for a reason other than a 
finding of inadequate representation of a client shall complete his or her work on any 
cases pending at the time of removal and shall be entitled to voucher for fees in those 
cases in the usual manner. Where removal is predicated on a finding of inadequate 
representation of a client as defined in the Minimum Standards for Indigent Criminal 
Appellate Defense Services, the appellate assigned counsel administrator shall move 
the trial court for substitution of counsel, with notice to the defendant, in any pending 
case assigned to the attorney affected. If substitution of counsel is granted, the trial 
court shall determine the amount of compensation due the attorney being replaced. 
No attorney may accept criminal appellate defense assignments after such time as 
removal of his or her name from the roster has become final.
(10) Any attorney whose name has been involuntarily removed from the roster may 
apply for reinstatement at any time after a period of six months from the removal 
date has elapsed and shall be reinstated whenever renewed eligibility has been 
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the administrator. Refusals to reinstate by the 
administrator are appealable de novo to the commission. The reasons for the 
administrator's refusal and the commission's findings shall be in writing. 
(11) Any attorney formerly eligible for assignments at Level II who has allowed his or 
her eligibility to lapse solely for failure to meet the continuing participation 
requirement of §4(5)(b) may, on application, be reinstated at Level II if the 
administrator finds on review of the circumstances that reinstatement at Level I is not 
required to protect the quality of representation received by defendants. 
Commission Comment: Establishing criteria for eligibility for the roster posed difficult 
and controversial questions. Criteria which were arbitrary, subjective or 
discriminatory in effect had to be avoided. Those which had no clear relationship to 
ability or which could prove misleading or unduly burdensome had to be identified. As 
a result, such indicators as years of membership in the bar, references, written 
examinations and a complicated point system were all considered and rejected. 
Criminal appellate experience was selected as the sole criterion which is both relevant 
and readily measurable.
The eligibility requirements accomplish the single but important purpose of preventing 
the least experienced attorneys from representing the defendants facing the most 
serious consequences. They serve only to prohibit attorneys with little or no criminal 
appellate experience from representing defendants convicted of crimes which carry an 
actual or potential maximum prison sentence in excess of 15 years. Attorneys who 
have handled a total of six felony appeals during the three years immediately 
preceding their initial application are automatically "grandfathered in" at Level II, i.e., 
they are eligible for assignment in any case. All other applicants are eligible for 
assignments only at Level I, i.e., to cases with actual or potential maximum 
sentences of 15 years or less. But the move to Level II may be made rapidly. A 
lawyer need only be counsel in two "Level I" appeals within an 18-month period to 
attain the designation "Level II." 
Drawing the line dividing Levels I and II at 15 years is arbitrary and troublesome. It is 
not suggested that defendants with relatively lower maximum sentences are 
somehow less deserving of effective representation or that their appeals necessarily 
raise less complex legal issues. The 15-year breakpoint was selected for purely 
practical reasons. The most common offenses tend to divide between those which 
carry maximum sentences of 15 years or less, and those which have "floating" 
maximums (life or any term of years). While the desire to safeguard defendants is the 
paramount object of the entire regulatory scheme, if a sufficient number of cases is 
not defined as Level I, attorneys may be denied the opportunity to gain the 
experience required for Level II. If movement from Level I to Level II were thus 
systematically discouraged, the number of Level II attorneys available for 
appointment could become inadequate and defendants, as well as lawyers, would 
suffer. The 15-year demarcation is meant to ensure a large enough pool of Level I 
appeals while still limiting the assignment of cases involving the most serious offenses 
and longest sentences to the more experienced appellate counsel. 
Subsection (5) exempts staff attorneys employed by the State Appellate Defender 
Office from having to prove their qualifications as Level II attorneys for two reasons. 
First, they are by definition not private assigned counsel subject to the operation of 
the roster. They are prohibited by MCL 780.711-780.719 from accepting outside 
employment and therefore cannot appear on the roster as individuals. The courts' 
appointments in the cases they handle are made to the State Appellate Defender 
Office as an entity, not to them personally. Second, the State Appellate Defender 
Office has internal hiring and promotional procedures which provide far greater 
quality control than the assigned counsel system is designed to afford. Pursuant to 
the statute, assistant defenders must, of course, conform to the minimum standards 
of performance. 
Having achieved eligibility for the roster, an attorney must meet certain minimal 
requirements in order to remain eligible. Level II attorneys are required to handle at 
least two felony appeals (assigned or retained) during the two years immediately 
preceding each eligibility renewal statement. All participating attorneys are expected 
to complete a course in criminal appellate advocacy. They are also expected to 
perform those tasks necessary to maintain the assigned counsel system as a whole, 
e.g., completing case summaries and renewal applications and contributing to the 
brief bank. Finally, they must continue to represent their clients in conformity with the 
minimum standards. 
Failure to maintain eligibility obviously has significant consequences to the affected 
attorneys. Due process safeguards are built into the administrative design through 
the mechanisms of written notices and findings of fact and de novo appeals to the 
Appellate Defender Commission. It must be remembered, however, that the potential 
consequences are limited to the attorney's eligibility for criminal appellate 
assignments. Civil work, criminal trial work, and even retained criminal appeals are 
not implicated. The ability of the state to set conditions on eligibility for appellate 
assignments stems from both the state's right to select and pay for attorneys in 
appointed cases and its responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of counsel it selects 
to represent indigent defendants. The eligibility criteria and continuing participation 
requirements selected by the commission are in accord with the recommendations of 
its predecessor groups. See ABA Standards, 5-2.2; nlada, pp 239-241; Report of the 
Defense Services Committee, recommendation 10, pp 260-261. 
________________________________________________________
The approved minimum standards for indigent criminal appellate defense services, 
together with the commentary of the Appellate Defender Commission, are as follows:
1. Counsel shall, to the best of his or her ability, act as the defendant's counselor 
and advocate, undeflected by conflicting interests and subject to the applicable 
law and rules of professional conduct. 
Commission Comment: The standard was adapted from the ABA Standards for 
Criminal Justice (2d ed, 1980), 4-1.1(b) and 4-1.1(c) (ABA Standards). It is 
meant to remind counsel of their ethical and professional responsibilities as the 
defendant's representative in an adversary system. The United States Supreme 
Court has emphasized that appellate defense counsel's task is to be an advocate, 
not amicus curiae. Anders v California, 386 US 738, 744; 87 S Ct 1396; 18 L Ed 
2d 493 (1967). Speaking for a majority of the Michigan Supreme Court, Justice 
Williams has stated: "We hold as a fundamental precept that a lawyer's duty to 
his client in a criminal case is judged by the same standard regardless of the fact 
that his client may be indigent. * * * The application of our Code of Professional 
Responsibility and Canons is not dependent upon the size of the retainer which an 
attorney receives." Holt v State Bar Grievance Board, 388 Mich 50, 60 (1972). 
2. Counsel shall not represent more than one of multiple codefendants on appeal 
regardless of whether the codefendants were jointly or separately tried, unless 
the codefendants express a preference for joint representation and there is no 
apparent conflict of interest. 
Commission Comment: This standard parallels GCR 1963, 785.4(4), which is 
intended to avoid conflicts of interest arising from the joint representation of 
codefendants at trial. Appellate counsel, like trial counsel, must scrupulously avoid 
being placed in a position where promoting the interests of one client requires 
minimizing or violating the interests of another client. See State Appellate 
Defender v Saginaw Circuit Judge, 91 Mich App 606 (1979). Just as at trial, 
arguments about the relative culpability of codefendants may be relevant to 
claims about the sufficiency of the evidence or the propriety of a sentence. If 
conflicts of interest are not investigated adequately in advance, defendants may 
have to face the difficulty of receiving substitute counsel weeks or months after a 
claim of appeal has been filed. The disrupted attorney-client relationship then 
must be replaced and substantial time may be added to the appellate process. 
3. Except in extraordinary circumstances, counsel shall interview the defendant in 
person on at least one occasion during the initial stages of representation. 
Commission Comment: Client interviews serve numerous purposes. They may 
reveal significant facts not on the record or even the fact that parts of the record 
are missing. They may confirm or eliminate claims of error. Interviews serve to 
alert counsel to circumstances which make dismissing the appeal the defendant's 
wisest choice. They afford the defendant the opportunity to meet the person upon 
whose performance his or her future depends. Personal interviews are crucial to 
establishing the trust and rapport which are the essence of a successful attorneyclient relationship. Meeting one's client for a discussion of the case seems on its 
face to be a fundamental aspect of professional conduct. The commission felt 
strongly that attorneys must be prepared to visit their clients wherever they may 
be incarcerated. Compensation for travel expenses must be considered a basic 
cost of providing assigned appellate counsel. Court of Appeals judges who 
responded to a questionnaire also felt that client interviews are important to 
effective representation on appeal. 
4. Counsel shall fully apprise the defendant of the reasonably foreseeable 
consequences of pursuing an appeal in the particular case under consideration. 
Commission Comment: The decision whether or not to appeal belongs to the 
defendant, but it is a decision that can only be made intelligently with the advice 
of counsel. In certain circumstances, success on appeal may expose a defendant 
to the risk of a longer sentence or conviction on higher or additional charges. An 
attorney who obtains reversal of a client's conviction but fails to foresee that the 
client will be worse off as a result does not "conscientiously protect his client's 
interest." Beasley v United States, 491 F2d 687, 696 (CA 6, 1974). To help the 
defendant make a realistic choice about appealing, counsel must explain the 
nature of the appellate process, the average time involved, the kind of remedies 
which may result, and the potential disadvantages such remedies may present. In 
accord see: ABA Standards, 4-8.2; Stewart v Wainwright, 309 F Supp 1023 (MD 
Fla, 1969); Smotherman v Beto, 276 F Supp 579, 585 (ND Tex, 1967). 
5. In any appeal of right, counsel shall comply with the applicable court rules 
regarding the timely and proper filing of claims of appeal and shall take any other 
steps which may be necessary to protect the defendant's right to review. 
Commission Comment: Once a defendant chooses to exercise his state 
constitutional right to appeal, counsel's first duty must be to take the procedural 
steps necessary to protect the continued existence of that right. Despite their 
general reluctance to find counsel ineffective, appellate courts have not hesitated 
to do so when a lawyer's negligence has caused a defendant to lose even the 
opportunity for an appellate review provided by law. See Const 1963, art 1, §20; 
GCR 1963, 803; ABA Standards, 4-8.2(b) and 4-8.4(a); Boyd v Cowan, 494 F2d 
338 (CA 6, 1974); Chapman v United States, 469 F2d 634 (CA 5, 1972). 
6. Counsel shall promptly request and review all transcripts and lower court 
records. 
Commission Comment: While the necessity to review the record in order to 
perfect an appeal is self-evident, this standard reminds counsel of two additional 
points. First, promptness in obtaining and reviewing the record is necessary if all 
issues are to be researched and all facts clarified in time to prepare a thorough 
brief. Second, the record includes more than the bare transcript of the trial or 
guilty plea. Such items as docket entries, charging documents, search warrants, 
competency and sanity evaluations, judicial orders and presentence reports may 
reveal or support claims of error. Familiarity with the total record is therefore 
crucial to effective appellate representation. See GCR 1963, 812, and Entsminger 
v Iowa, 386 US 748; 87 S Ct 1402; 18 L Ed 2d 501 (1967). 
7. Counsel shall investigate potentially meritorious claims of error not reflected in 
the trial court record when he or she is informed or has reason to believe that 
facts in support of such claims exist. 
Commission Comment: Some attorneys feel that appellate representation is 
bound by the four corners of the record and that there is no place for factual 
investigation on appeal. Such a view is belied by GCR 1963, 817.6, which 
establishes the procedure for developing a record for appeal when the existing 
record is inadequate to support a claim of error. Information provided by the 
defendant or trial counsel or unanswered questions raised by the existing record 
may lead conscientious appellate counsel to the identification of potentially 
reversible error. This standard does not place on counsel the duty to actively 
search for every off-record claim that might conceivably be developed. It does, 
however, require counsel to be alert to the possibility of off-record claims, to 
verify facts which would be significant if proven, and to investigate circumstances 
which a criminal lawyer would recognize as potentially prejudicial to his or her 
client. Ignoring nonrecord claims on appeal when a procedure exists for asserting 
them is the equivalent of failing to "investigate all apparently substantial 
defenses" at trial. Beasley v United States, supra. See also ABA Standards, 4-4.1.
8. Counsel shall move for and conduct such evidentiary hearings as may be 
required to create or supplement a record for review of any claim of error not 
adequately supported by existing records which he or she believes to be 
meritorious. 
Commission Comment: This standard is a necessary corollary to the preceding 
one. If investigation reveals facts off the record which would support a claim on 
appeal, it then becomes appellate counsel's duty to develop a testimonial record 
for review as GCR 1963, 817.6 provides. See People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 
443-444 (1973). 
9. Counsel should assert claims of error which are supported by facts of record, 
which will benefit the defendant if successful, which possess arguable legal merit, 
and which should be recognizable by a practitioner familiar with criminal law and 
procedure who engages in diligent legal research. 
Commission Comment: The fundamental purpose served by providing counsel on 
appeal is to interpose between client and court the judgment of a professional 
familiar with the criminal law, who has assessed the facts and brought to the 
court's attention any errors which might entitle the defendant to relief. Competent 
exercise of this professional judgment is the crucial duty owed by appellate 
counsel to the defendant. The standard does not require that every innovative 
issue conceivable be raised in every case. It is addressed to the level of 
competence which can reasonably be expected of a conscientious criminal 
appellate practitioner who is not a full-time specialist. It does, however, stress the 
assertion of all arguably meritorious claims rather than the preselection by 
counsel of the one or two issues which in counsel's own opinion will in fact be 
successful. The "reasonableness" test of Beasley v United States, supra, was 
expressly adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in People v Garcia, 398 Mich 
250, 266 (1976). Although Beasley specifically addresses the conduct of trial 
counsel, its references to the assertion of "all apparently substantial defenses" 
and to "strategy and tactics which lawyers of ordinary training and skill would not 
consider competent" are useful and have been applied to appellate counsel. See 
Rook v Cupp, 18 Or App 608; 526 P2d 605 (1974). 
Before enunciation of the Beasley standard, the Michigan Supreme Court 
remanded for consideration by the State Bar Grievance Board a defendant's 
complaint against his assigned appellate counsel. The lawyer had failed to assert 
as error a claim identical to one then pending consideration by the Supreme 
Court, even though the defendant himself had pointed out the problem. 
Emphasizing the need for "proper legal research," the Court found "substantial 
evidence that suggests the defendant may have been inadequately represented." 
Holt v State Bar Grievance Board, supra, 62. The California Supreme Court 
requires appellate counsel to raise "all issues that are arguable." People v 
Feggans, 67 Cal 2d 444, 447; 62 Cal Rptr 419; 432 P2d 21 (1967). The United 
States Supreme Court has said that indigent defendants must be afforded counsel 
to argue on appeal "any of the legal points arguable on their merits." Anders v 
California, supra.
10. Counsel should not hesitate to assert claims which may be complex, unique, 
or controversial in nature, such as issues of first impression, challenges to the 
effectiveness of other defense counsel, or arguments for change in the existing 
law. 
Commission Comment: This standard complements the preceding one. While 
recognition of unique or complex issues cannot be required, assertion of such 
issues when recognized is encouraged. The attorney who, through expertise or 
inspiration, identifies a claim which may be conceptually difficult or controversial 
is obligated to pursue it in the defendant's behalf. This standard also specifically 
cautions appellate lawyers against avoiding legitimate ineffective assistance of 
counsel claims out of undue deference to their peers. In accord, see ABA 
Standards, 4-8.6(a) and 4-8.6(b). 
11. When a defendant insists that a particular claim be raised on appeal against 
the advice of counsel, counsel shall inform the defendant that he or she has the 
right to present that claim to the appellate court in propria persona. Should the 
defendant choose to proceed in such manner, counsel shall provide procedural 
advice and such clerical assistance as may be required to conform the defendant's 
pleadings for acceptability to the court. 
Commission Comment: This standard is the product of three strongly felt 
concerns. One is that the case belongs to the defendant and clients should not be 
foreclosed from the opportunity to act upon disagreements with their professional 
representatives. Nonindigent defendants who wish to have particular claims 
asserted are able to select retained counsel based upon the lawyer's willingness to 
comply with their wishes. Indigent defendants should at least be provided the aid 
minimally necessary to present such claims by themselves. The second concern is 
that in every dispute between defendants and lawyers about the merits of a 
claim, the defendant is not necessarily wrong. Holt v State Bar Grievance Board, 
supra, is a case on point. This standard is intended to protect not only the 
defendant's dignity, but his or her right to prevent meritorious claims from being 
buried by an attorney's mistake. On the other hand, the attorney's role is to 
exercise professional judgment, and appellate counsel cannot be required to 
pursue claims which he or she had in good faith rejected as lacking any arguable 
merit. Counsel is only expected to provide such assistance as an indigent client, 
particularly one who is incarcerated, may reasonably need to place such claims 
before the court. The commission anticipates that compliance with other
standards, particularly those that serve to promote trust and rapport between 
attorney and client, will result in this standard being implemented infrequently. 
12. Assigned counsel shall not take any steps towards dismissing an appeal for 
lack of arguably meritorious issues without first obtaining the defendant's 
informed written consent. 
Commission Comment: This standard addresses the situation where, based on the 
advice of counsel that no arguable grounds for relief exist, the defendant agrees 
to dismiss his or her appeal. Unlike cases in which an Anders brief is filed or a 
brief raising some but not all potential claims is submitted, a stipulation 
dismissing an appeal results in no judicial review on the merits. Nor does it result 
in substitution of counsel. The defendant's right to appeal is simply abandoned. 
The decision to dismiss, like the decision to proceed, is ultimately the client's. 
Thus, counsel is prohibited from taking any unilateral action to dismiss. Counsel is 
obligated to be certain that the defendant understands what dismissal means and 
why it is being recommended. All relevant legal and factual considerations should 
be explored. The defendant's questions about any aspect of the proceedings 
which led to conviction should be answered. The practice of obtaining written 
consent protects the lawyer as well as the client. See ABA Standards, 4-8.2(a) 
and 4-8.3. 
13. Counsel should seek to utilize publicly funded support services designed to 
enhance their capacity to present the law and facts to the extent that such 
services are available and may significantly improve the representation they can 
provide. 
Commission Comment: This standard encourages counsel to avail themselves of 
publicly funded defense support services, e.g., the Legal Resources Project, 
investigative services, expert witness files. To the extent that services are 
provided at state expense in order to equalize the opportunities of indigent and 
nonindigent defendants, clients should not be denied the benefits of these 
services by the ignorance or negligence of attorneys who have also been provided 
at public expense. 
14. Counsel shall be accurate in referring to the record and the authorities relied 
on in both written and oral presentations to the court. 
Commission Comment: Accuracy is, of course, required by both court rule and 
professional ethics. Counsel's personal reputation for accuracy may also affect the 
credence given by the court to defendants' cases. Court of Appeals judges 
responding to a questionnaire ranked accurate representation of the facts as the 
most crucial aspect of appellate representation and accurate representation of the 
law as only marginally less crucial. See also GCR 1963, 813, and ABA Standards, 
4-8.4(b). 
15. Counsel shall comply with all applicable court rules regarding the timely filing 
of pleadings and with such other timing requirements as may be specified by the 
court in a particular case. 
Commission Comment: It is apparent that minimum performance must include 
compliance with court rules and orders specifying filing dates for pleadings,
hearing dates, etc. Failure to comply can have consequences to the defendant 
ranging from loss of oral argument to dismissal of the appeal for lack of progress. 
See GCR 1963, 815-819. 
16. Counsel should request and appear for oral argument. In preparation for oral 
argument counsel shall review the briefs of both parties, file supplemental 
pleadings as warranted, and update his or her legal research. 
Commission Comment: While opinions vary about the extent to which oral 
arguments affect the outcome of most appeals, defendants are entitled to have 
their attorneys pursue every available avenue of persuasion. Argument provides 
the opportunity for counsel to present recent cases, counter the prosecution's 
position, and answer the court's questions. Utilizing this opportunity obviously 
depends upon preparation. At the other extreme, counsel's failure to appear not 
only precludes these potential benefits but diminishes the apparent seriousness of 
claims which the defendant's own lawyer does not think worthy of argument. 
17. Counsel shall keep the defendant apprised of the progress of the case and 
shall promptly forward to the defendant copies of pleadings filed in his or her 
behalf and orders and opinions issued by the court in his or her case. 
Commission Comment: Assigned criminal appellate defense counsel represent 
poor clients who are usually in prison. It is an inherently unequal relationship, 
with the clients having little control over, and limited access to, their lawyers. It is 
easy for well-intentioned but busy attorneys to lose sight of the significance of a 
particular appeal to an individual defendant. Correspondence may be put off, 
phone calls unanswered, delays left unexplained. This standard reminds counsel 
that their clients are wholly dependent upon them for information and requires 
them to minimize their client's inevitable anxieties by providing such information 
as it becomes available. It also ensures that defendants will have the opportunity 
to assess the work being performed on their behalf and to express satisfaction or 
dissatisfaction at appropriate times on an informed basis. In accord see ABA 
Standards, 4-3.8, and nlada, p 353. 
18. Upon disposition of the case by the court, counsel shall promptly and 
accurately inform the defendant of the courses of action which may be pursued as 
a result of that disposition, and the scope of any further representation counsel 
will provide. 
Commission Comment: This standard requires appellate attorneys to complete the 
tasks of the counselor as well as those of the advocate. It prohibits abrupt 
abandonment of the attorney-client relationship upon judicial disposition of the 
case without due regard to the defendant's need for information and guidance. It 
does not require counsel to provide legal representation beyond the scope of the 
original order of appointment. It does assume that the original order includes a 
responsibility to explain the consequences of the representation already provided. 
When appropriate, the means and advisability of pursuing such avenues as 
applications to the Supreme Court or habeas corpus petitions in federal court 
should be discussed. Clients who have had their convictions reversed and are 
awaiting retrial should be represented by appellate counsel until it is clear that no 
further appeals will occur and trial counsel has been obtained. The goal of the 
standard is to prevent defendants from losing potential sources of relief because 
they have been left ignorant of available procedures. See ABA Standards, 4-8.5 
19. At whatever point in the postconviction proceedings counsel's representation 
terminates, counsel shall cooperate with the defendant and any successor counsel 
in the transmission of records and information. 
Commission Comment: This standard merely reminds counsel that even after the 
attorney-client relationship has been terminated certain ethical obligations 
remain. To the extent that counsel possesses transcripts, documents or 
information which the defendant needs to pursue other avenues of relief, counsel 
has the duty to transmit them promptly and fully at the defendant's request. 
20. Counsel shall not seek or accept fees from the defendant or from any other 
source on the defendant's behalf other than those authorized by the appointing
authority. 
Commission Comment: Throughout their discussions commission members 
expressed deep concern about the low rates at which assigned counsel are 
compensated. Individuals interested in a defendant's welfare occasionally
approach appointed attorneys offering supplemental fees as an incentive to hard 
work. Recognizing the inevitable temptation such offers present, the commission 
believed that the obvious ethical point made by this standard was worthy of 
separate attention. 
To provide adequate notice of the Court's approval of the minimum standards for 
indigent criminal defense services, the minimum standards will apply to all 
counsel appointed to represent indigents on appeal after February 1, 1982. 
We repeat here that the implementation of the regulations governing the system 
for appointment of appellate counsel for indigents in criminal cases requires 
legislative appropriation of funds sufficient to operate the system. In such event, 
another administrative order will be promulgated implementing the system and 
requiring adherence to it. 
We further note that the comments of the commission are not a construction by 
the Court. The comments represent the views of the commission. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1983-2
The Court has received and reviewed the recommendation of the Courthouse Study 
Advisory Committee which urges the adoption of the Guidelines contained in Volume I
of The Michigan Courthouse Study, pp 53-171. The Court finds that the guidelines 
reflect sound principles of court facility planning and design, application of which can 
greatly improve the functioning of Michigan's courts.
Accordingly, all courts and communities planning for and carrying out either 
construction, remodeling, or renovation of court facilities are urged to use the 
guidelines.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1983-3
[Rescinded effective February 6, 2007]
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1983-7
On order of the Court, effective immediately, the clerk of the Court of Appeals is 
directed to provide an additional copy of any order or opinion disposing of an appeal 
in a criminal case to the defendant's lawyer if the defendant was represented by 
counsel. Counsel shall thereupon forward the additional copy to the defendant. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1985-5
Juvenile Court Standards and Administrative Guidelines for the Care of 
Children
On order of the Court, the Juvenile Court Standards and Administrative Guide-lines
for the Care of Children as recommended by the Michigan Probate and Juvenile Court 
Judges Association are adopted effective May 1, 1985, expiring May 1, 1987. The 
State Court Administrative Office is to assess the effect of these standards on the 
Juvenile Court and provide a report to the Supreme Court by December 30, 1986.
[Text as modified April 29,1988, Administrative Order No. 1988-3, 430 Mich xcix and 
by order of May 19,2009 effective September 1, 2009.] 
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1985-5, this Court adopted the Juvenile Court 
Standards and Administrative Guidelines for the Care of Children, as amended by 
Administrative Order No. 1988-3.  We now order that the Juvenile Court Standards 
and Administrative Guidelines continue in effect, as modified below, until the further 
order of this Court:

Juvenile Court Standards and
Administrative Guidelines for the Care of Children
I. Court administrators, supervisory personnel, county juvenile officers, probation 
officers, caseworkers, and personnel of court-operated child care facilities shall meet 
the following minimum standards in order to qualify for employment, unless the state 
court administrator grants an exception under I(G). Desired standards are those 
preferred qualifications that extend beyond minimal standards but are not required to 
perform the job function.
These standards shall apply only to new staff hired by the juvenile court on or after 
the effective date of these standards. A court employee who is currently in a position 
that was approved under regulations that preceded the implementation of these 
standards shall be deemed qualified for that position. A court-appointed person hired 
after the effective date of these standards shall meet the minimum qualification of 
these standards for that position. 
A. Court Administrator/Director
The person in the juvenile court who is directly responsible to the chief or presiding 
probate judge and who is delegated administrative responsibilities for the operation of 
the court. 
A court administrator, at the time of appointment, shall possess the following 
qualifications:
1. Education and Experience:
a. Desired Standards:
(1) Master's degree in social sciences, business or public administration, education, 
criminal justice, a related field that qualifies the person to manage or supervise the 
delivery of juvenile services, or a law degree with a minimum of four years of 
supervisory experience with juvenile court staff. 
b. Minimum Standards
(1) Master's degree in social sciences, business or public administration, education, 
criminal justice, a related field that qualifies the person to manage or supervise the 
delivery of juvenile services, or a law degree with a minimum of one year of 
experience working with juvenile court staff or related human service field. 
(2) A bachelor's degree in those same areas and two years of supervisory experience 
working with juvenile court staff or related human services field. (Courts with only 
one level of supervision may use two years of casework experience in lieu of 
supervisory experience.) 
c. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
(1)Knowledge of the juvenile justice system and overall children's services programs. 
(2)Knowledge of supervisory responsibilities and techniques. 
(3)Knowledge of the principles of administrative management. 
(4)Knowledge of programs and services provided by governmental agencies and the 
private sector. 
(5)Knowledge of the principles and methods concerned with personal and social 
problem solving. 
(6)Knowledge of the factors concerned in delinquency, neglect and abuse of children. 
(7)Knowledge of labor relations and personnel practices. 
(8)Ability to develop budgetary matters. 
(9)Ability to organize, direct and monitor service delivery work units and coordinate 
activities with other sections or agencies. 
(10)Ability to supervise professional and support staff, evaluate staff performance and 
assist in staff training. 
(11)Ability to develop policy and procedural materials and funding proposals. 
(12)Ability to analyze program data and recommend policy and procedural changes 
and program objectives. 
(13)Ability to interpret and effectively communicate administrative and professional 
policies and procedures to staff, governmental agencies, community organizations, 
advisory committees and the public. 
(14) Ability to speak and write effectively. 
B. Supervisory Personnel
Those directly responsible for ongoing supervision of professional and support staff 
providing direct services to children, youth and their families.
A supervisor, at the time of appointment, shall possess the following qualifications:
1. Education and Experience
a. Desired Standards
(1) Master's degree in social work, education, a human service field, or a related field 
that qualifies the person to manage or supervise the delivery of juvenile services,  
with one year of professional experience in juvenile court work. 
b. Minimum Standards
(1) A bachelor's degree in social sciences, education, a human service field, or a 
related field that qualifies the person to manage or supervise the delivery of juvenile 
services, with two years of professional experience with a juvenile court staff or in a 
child welfare agency. 
c. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
(1)Knowledge of supervisory responsibilities and techniques. 
(2)Knowledge of principles, practices and techniques of child welfare work. 
(3)Knowledge of family dynamics and the effects of social conditions on family 
functioning. 
(4)Knowledge of factors concerned in delinquency, abuse and neglect of children. 
(5)Knowledge of principles and methods concerned with personal and social problem 
solving. 
(6)Knowledge of the juvenile justice system and overall children's services programs 
including related laws. 
(7)Knowledge of labor relations and personnel practices. 
(8)Knowledge of organizations, functions and treatment programs for children. 
(9)Ability to supervise professional and support staff, evaluate staff performance and 
assist in staff training. 
(10)Ability to speak and write effectively. 
(11)Ability to develop child welfare programs with community organizations. 
(12)Ability to apply social casework methods to child welfare services. 
(13)Ability to interpret and effectively communicate administrative and professional 
policies and procedures to staff, governmental agencies, community organizations, 
advisory committees and the public. 
C. Direct Services: Probation Officers/Casework Staff
The professional staff who work directly with children and their families and other 
relevant individuals and who are primarily responsible for the development, 
implementation and review of plans for children, youth and their families.
Each county shall provide for a minimum of one delinquency probation 
officer/casework staff person (but exclusive of clinical staff and detention home 
personnel) for every 6,000 (or major fraction thereof) children under 19 years of age 
in the county.
A probation officer/caseworker, at the time of appointment, shall possess the 
following qualifications:
1. Education and Experience
a. Desired Standards
(1) Bachelor's degree in social work, criminal justice, education, behavioral sciences, 
or a related field that qualifies the person to manage or supervise the delivery of 
juvenile services, with two years of casework experience in juvenile court or a related 
child welfare agency and must complete the Michigan Judicial Institute certification 
training for juvenile court staff within two years after date of employment. 
b. Minimum Standards
(1) Bachelor's degree in social sciences, education, a related human service field, or a 
related field that qualifies the person to manage or supervise the delivery of juvenile 
services, and must complete the Michigan Judicial Institute certification training for 
juvenile court staff within two years after date of employment. 
c. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
(1)Knowledge of the principles and methods concerned with personal and social 
problem solving. 
(2)Knowledge of factors concerned in delinquency, neglect and abuse of children. 
(3)Knowledge of family dynamics and the effects of social conditions on family 
functioning. 
(4)Knowledge of the juvenile justice system and children's services programs. 
(5)Knowledge of the principles, procedures and techniques of child welfare work. 
(6)Ability to apply social casework methods to child welfare services. 
(7)Ability to develop child welfare programs with community organizations. 
(8)Ability to relate effectively to the public and individuals on their caseload. 
(9)Ability to speak and write effectively. 
D. Administrator of County Child Care Facility
The person responsible to the chief or presiding probate judge or to the juvenile court 
administrator and to whom is delegated overall administrative responsibility for the 
day-to-day operation of county child care facilities operated by the court. 
The administrator, at the time of appointment, shall possess the following 
qualifications:
1. Education and Experience
a. Desired Standards
(1) Master's degree in social work, sociology, psychology, guidance and counseling, 
education, business administration, criminal justice, public administration, or a related 
field that qualifies the person to manage or supervise the delivery of juvenile services, 
and two years of supervisory experience in a juvenile court, public or private child 
care facility. 
b. Minimum Standards
(1) Same as above with a minimum of one year of supervisory experience in a 
juvenile court, public or private child care facility. 
(2) Bachelor's degree in social science, education, human service field, or a related 
field that qualifies the person to manage or supervise the delivery of juvenile services, 
and two years of experience in a juvenile court, public or private child care facility. 
c. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
(1)Knowledge of supervisory responsibilities and techniques. 
(2)Knowledge of principles and methods concerned with personal and social problem 
solving. 
(3)Knowledge of factors concerned in delinquency, neglect and abuse of children. 
(4)Knowledge of family dynamics and effects of social conditions on family 
functioning. 
(5)Knowledge of the juvenile justice system and children's services programs. 
(6)Knowledge of child welfare organizations, functions and treatment programs 
relevant to residential care of children. 
(7)Knowledge of group treatment modalities. 
(8)Knowledge of labor relations, personnel policies and practices. 
(9)Ability to organize, direct and monitor service delivery work units and coordinate 
activities with other sections or agencies. 
(10)Ability to direct, monitor and coordinate several functions of a residential 
program. 
(11)Ability to supervise professional and support staff, evaluate staff performance, 
and assist in staff training. 
(12)Ability to analyze program data and recommend policy and procedural changes 
and program objectives. 
(13)Ability to analyze personal and social data and apply rehabilitative principles 
within the facility. 
(14)Ability to interpret and effectively communicate administrative and professional 
policies and procedures to staff, governmental agencies, community organizations, 
advisory committees, and the public. 
(15)Ability to speak and write effectively. 
E. Child Care Staff Supervisor
The child care supervisor is directly responsible for supervision of child care workers 
in the facility.
The child care supervisor, at the time of appointment, shall possess the following 
qualifications:
1. Education and Experience
a. Desired Standards
(1)Bachelor's degree in social work, psychology, sociology, education,  criminal 
justice, related human services field, or a related field that qualifies the person to 
manage or supervise the delivery of juvenile services, with two years of experience 
with a juvenile court or a public or private child care agency. 
b. Minimum Standards
(1) Two years of college in a human services or education field or a related field that 
qualifies the person to manage or supervise the delivery of juvenile services, and two 
years of work experience in a child care institution. 
c. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
(1)Knowledge of supervisory responsibilities and techniques. 
(2)Knowledge of the principles and methods concerned with personal and social 
problem solving. 
(3)Knowledge of factors concerned in delinquency, abuse and neglect of children. 
(4)Knowledge of family dynamics and the effects of social conditions on family 
functioning. 
(5)Knowledge of the juvenile justice system and children's services. 
(6)Knowledge of group treatment modalities. 
(7)Ability to supervise staff, evaluate staff performance and assist in staff training 
activities. 
(8)Ability to analyze personal and social data and apply rehabilitation principles in a 
practice setting. 
(9)Ability to interpret administrative and professional policies and procedures to staff. 
(10)Ability to apply social casework methods to child welfare activity. 
(11)Ability to speak and write effectively. 
(12)Basic knowledge of first aid and cpr training. 
(13)Knowledge of labor relations and personnel practices. 
F. Child Care Worker
The person who provides direct care of children in the facility.
A child care worker, at the time of appointment, shall possess the following 
qualifications:
1. Education and Experience
a. Desired Standards
(1) Bachelor's degree in social sciences, human services, or a related field, that 
qualifies the person to work with juveniles. 
b. Minimum Standards
(1) A high school diploma or its equivalent. 
c. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
(1) Knowledge of appropriate conduct and manners. 
(2) Knowledge of potential facility management problems including behavior 
problems, food services. 
(3) Knowledge of potential behavior problems of children and youth. 
(4) Ability to provide role model for residents. 
(5) Ability to gain the respect, confidence and cooperation of children and youth. 
(6) Ability to teach children personal hygiene, proper conduct and household work. 
(7) Ability to understand and relate to problem children in a positive manner. 
(8) Ability to comprehend and follow oral and written directions. 
(9) Basic knowledge of first aid and cpr training within six months after date of 
employment. 
G. Exceptions
The state court administrator may authorize a court to hire an employee who 
does not meet the educational requirements established in these standards if the 
court provides a reasonable period within which the candidate must meet the 
educational standards.
H. A bachelor’s degree or other post-secondary degree is a degree from a college or 
university that is accredited by an accrediting body of the Council for Higher 
Education Accreditation.
II. Contents of Juvenile Court Case Records
A. Purpose
A complete case record serves a range of purposes including, but not limited to, the 
following:
1. Provides an information base for planning and the delivery of services to a 
youth and family.
2. Provides documentation from which the worker can make appropriate 
recommendations for placement and services.
3. Provides an information base to assist in transfer of cases between workers and 
agencies.
B. Case Record Contents for Youth Under Court Jurisdiction Placed in Their Own Home
A separate case record shall be maintained for each youth or family under court 
supervision. Records shall be maintained in a uniform and organized manner and shall 
be protected against destruction (except as provided by court rule) and damage and 
shall be stored in a manner that safeguards confidentiality.
1. Records shall be typed or legibly handwritten and shall include as a minimum the 
following:
a. A report of the original complaint and/or petition and an appropriate social 
study. 
b.Copies of orders of the court regarding the child and family. 
c.Individual case plans with time frames where appropriate.
d.Youth record fact sheet containing the following information: child's full name; 
date and place of birth; sex; religion of parents and child; parents' full names 
including mother's maiden name; address, dates and place of marriage or 
divorce; if deceased, date, place and cause of death; names, addresses and birth 
dates of other children in the family; names and addresses of near relatives; 
appropriate medical records.
e. Dates of casework visits or contact with child and family. Summary reports of 
child's progress under care, completed at least semiannually.
f. School reports, including grades, progress reports, and social and psychological 
reports if available and appropriate.
g. Reports of psychological tests or psychiatric examinations and follow-up 
treatment, if available.
h. Family financial report where appropriate.
i. Discharge summary and order for discharge.
j. Correspondence. 
C. Case Record Contents for Youth Under Court Jurisdiction in Out-of-Home 
Placement
Case records for youth in out-of-home placements shall include the same items as 
indicated for youth placed in their own home with the following additions: 
1. Individual case plans shall, where appropriate, include:
a.Description of type and appropriateness of the placement.
b.Action steps and goals expected to be accomplished by the agency.
c.Action steps and goals expected to be accomplished by the parents.
d.Action steps and goals expected to be accomplished by the child.
e.Action steps and goals expected to be accomplished by the court worker.
f.Plan for assuring proper care (supervision; review).
g.Plan for regular and frequent visitation between child and parents unless 
such visits, even if supervised, would not be in the best interest of the child.
h.Time frames for accomplishing elements of the case plan.
2. Record of youth's placements. Name of place, beginning and ending dates of 
residence.
3. Documentation of emergency medical care authorization.
4. Health record, which includes:
a. Medical history.
b. Documentation of current and prior immunizations.
c. Dental information.
5. Medicaid approval.
6. Governmental benefits and parental support information.
7. Foster care termination summary or residential agency summary.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1985-6
Court Funding; Funding Disputes Between Courts and Local Funding Units; 
Submission of Budgets
Administrative Order No. 1985-6 is rescinded, effective immediately, pursuant to 
Administrative Order No. 1997-6.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1987-1
Providing Access to Juror Personal History Questionnaires
This Court has amended MCR 2.510(C)(2), effective April 1, 1987,to direct the State 
Court Administrator to develop model procedures for providing attorneys and parties 
access to juror personal history questionnaires. Individual courts are directed to select 
and implement one of these procedures within two months after the State Court 
Administrator notifies the courts of the issuance of the model procedures. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1987-2
Michigan Uniform System of Citation 
[Rescinded by Administrative Order 2006-3, effective May 1, 2006]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1987-9
Administrative Orders re Selection of Mediators
[Rescinded effective February 23, 2006.]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1988-2
Summary Jury Trial
[Rescinded effective February 23, 2006.]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1988-3
See Administrative Order No. 1985-5 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1988-4
Sentencing Guidelines
Note: Rescinded December 15, 1998, with respect to cases in which the offense is 
committed on or after January 1, 1999. See Administrative Order No. 1998-4 -
Reporter. 
Administrative Order No. 1985-2, 420 Mich lxii, and Administrative Order No. 1984-1, 
418 Mich lxxx, are rescinded as of October 1, 1988. The Sentencing Guidelines 
Advisory Committee is authorized to issue the second edition of the sentencing 
guidelines, to be effective October 1, 1988. Until further order of the Court, every 
judge of the circuit court must thereafter use the second edition of the sentencing 
guidelines when imposing a sentence for an offense that is included in the guidelines. 
Whenever a judge of the circuit determines that a minimum sentence outside the 
recommended minimum range should be imposed, the judge may do so. When such a 
sentence is imposed, the judge must explain on the record the aspects of the case 
that have persuaded the judge to impose a sentence outside the recommended 
minimum range. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1989-1
Film or Electronic Media Coverage of Court Proceedings
The following guidelines shall apply to film or electronic media coverage of 
proceedings in Michigan courts: 
1. Definitions.
(a) "Film or electronic media coverage" means any recording or broadcasting of 
court proceedings by the media using television, radio, photographic, or recording 
equipment.
(b) "Media" or "media agency" means any person or organization engaging in
news gathering or reporting and includes any newspaper, radio or television 
station or network, news service, magazine, trade paper, professional journal, or 
other news reporting or news gathering agency.
(c) "Judge" means the judge presiding over a proceeding in the trial court, the 
presiding judge of a panel in the Court of Appeals, or the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court. 
2. Limitations.
(a) Film or electronic media coverage shall be allowed upon request in all court 
proceedings. Requests by representatives of media agencies for such coverage 
must be made in writing to the clerk of the particular court not less than three 
business days before the proceeding is scheduled to begin. A judge has the 
discretion to honor a request that does not comply with the requirements of this 
subsection. The court shall provide that the parties be notified of a request for 
film or electronic media coverage.
(b) A judge may terminate, suspend, limit, or exclude film or electronic media 
coverage at any time upon a finding, made and articulated on the record in the 
exercise of discretion, that the fair administration of justice requires such action, 
or that rules established under this order or additional rules imposed by the judge 
have been violated. The judge has sole discretion to exclude coverage of certain 
witnesses, including but not limited to the victims of sex crimes and their 
families,police informants, undercover agents, and relocated witnesses. 
(c) Film or electronic media coverage of the jurors or the jury selection process 
shall not be permitted. 
(d) A trial judge's decision to terminate, suspend, limit, or exclude film or 
electronic media coverage is not appealable, by right or by leave. 
3. Judicial Authority. Nothing in these guidelines shall be construed as altering the 
authority of the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, trial court chief 
judges, or trial judges to control proceedings in their courtrooms, and to ensure 
decorum and prevent distractions and to ensure the fair administration of justice in 
the pending cause.
4. Equipment and Personnel. Unless the judge orders otherwise, the following rules 
apply:
(a) Not more than two videotape or television cameras, operated by not more 
than one person each, shall be permitted in any courtroom. 
(b) Not more than two still photographers, utilizing not more than two still 
cameras each with not more than two lenses for each camera, and related 
necessary equipment, shall be permitted in any courtroom. 
(c) Not more than one audio system for radio and/or television recording 
purposes shall be permitted in any courtroom. If such an audio system is 
permanently in place in the courtroom, pickup shall be made from that system; if 
it is not, microphones and wires shall be placed as unobtrusively as possible. 
(d) Media agency representatives shall make their own pooling arrangements 
without calling upon the court to mediate any dispute relating to those 
arrangements. In the absence of media agency agreement on procedures, 
personnel, and equipment, the judge shall not permit the use of film or electronic 
media coverage. 
5. Sound and Light Critera.
(a) Only television, photographic, and audio equipment which does not produce 
distracting sound or light shall be utilized to cover judicial proceedings. Courtroom 
lighting shall be supplemented only if the judge grants permission. 
(b) Only still camera equipment which does not produce distracting sound or light 
shall be employed to cover judicial proceedings. No artifical lighting device of any 
kind shall be employed with a still camera. 
(c) Media agency personnel must demonstrate in advance, to the satisfaction of 
the judge, that the equipment proposed for utilization will not detract from the 
proceedings. 
6. Location of Equipment and Personnel.
(a) Television camera equipment and attendant personnel shall be positioned in 
such locations in the courtroom as shall be designated by the judge. Audio and 
video tape recording and amplification equipment which is not a component of a 
camera or microphone shall be located in a designated area remote from the 
courtroom. 
(b) Still camera photographers shall be positioned in such locations in the 
courtroom as shall be designated by the judge. Still camera photographers shall 
assume fixed positions within the designated areas and shall not move about in 
any way that would detract from the proceedings. 
(c) Photographic or audio equipment may be placed in, moved about in, or 
removed from, the courtroom only during a recess. Camera film and lenses may 
be changed in the courtroom only during a recess. 
(d)Representatives of the media agencies are invited to submit suggested 
equipment positions to the judge for consideration. 
7. Conferences. There shall be no audio pickup, broadcast or video closeup of 
conferences between an attorney and client, between co-counsel, between counsel 
and the judge held at the bench at trial, or between judges in an appellate 
proceeding. 
8. Conduct of Media Agency Personnel. Persons assigned by media agencies to 
operate within the courtroom shall dress and deport themselves in ways that will not 
detract from the proceedings. 
9. Nonexclusivity. These guidelines shall not preclude coverage of any judicial 
proceeding by news reporters or other persons who are employing more traditional 
means, such as taking notes or drawing pictures. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1989-2
Videotaped Record of Court Proceedings
On order of the Court, the Sixth and Ninth Circuit Courts are authorized, until further 
order of this Court, to conduct an experimental program in one courtroom in each 
circuit which will utilize videotaped recordings as part of the records of the case. 
The State Court Administrator is authorized to expand the experiment by approving 
the use of videotaped recordings as part of the records of the case in up to ten 
additional courtrooms. The applications by the trial courts and approval by the State 
Court Administrator shall be based upon criteria established by this Court. 
This order authorizes exceptions to the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 
3A(7), which currently prohibits such recording, and to MCR 8.108, which requires 
that certified court reporters and recorders furnishing transcripts of proceedings be in 
attendance at those proceedings. 
The following guidelines shall apply to this experimental program: 
1.At least two videotape recordings, recorded simultaneously, shall constitute part of 
the original record in the case. One videotape shall be retained by the clerk of the 
court to be forwarded, if an appeal is taken, to the Court of Appeals pursuant to MCR 
7.210. The other videotape shall be stored off the court premises in a location to be 
designated by the chief judge. 
2.The judge shall: 
(a)Be charged with the responsibility of ensuring, through routine checks of the 
videotape system by a suitably trained person, that the videotape system is 
operating in keeping with specifications. 
(b)Keep a proper index of proceedings that have been videotaped, including a list 
of witnesses and exhibits. 
3. If an appeal is taken in an action which has been videotaped under this order, a 
transcript of the proceedings must be prepared in the same manner as in the case of 
proceedings recorded in other ways. However, a court reporter or recorder need not 
certify attendance at the proceedings being transcribed from the videotaped record, 
but need only certify that the transcript represents the complete, true, and correct 
rendition of the videotape of the proceeding as recorded. 
4.Transcripts of videotape recordings must contain, on each page, a reference to the 
number of the videotape and the month, day, year, hour, minute and second at which 
the reference begins as recorded on the videotape. For example: (Tape No. 1, 10-1-
87, 13:12:11). 
5.Film or electronic media coverage in these courts, if utilized, shall be governed by 
the guidelines set out in Administrative Order No. 1989-1, 432 Mich xxii. 
6. The State Court Administrative Office shall provide assistance in implementation of 
the pilot projects, and shall conduct an evaluation of the experimental program. The 
pilot courts shall cooperate with the State Court Administrative Office. 
7. This order shall be effective upon entry. Administrative Order No. 1987-7, 429 Mich 
xciv, is rescinded. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1989-3
In re the Appointment of Appellate Assigned Counsel
On order of the Court, 1978 PA 620 authorized the Appellate Defender Commission to 
develop a system of indigent appellate defense services to include services provided 
by the Office of the State Appellate Defender and locally appointed private counsel. 
This legislation also authorized the Commission to compile and keep current a 
statewide roster of attorneys eligible for and willing to accept appointment by an 
appropriate court to serve as criminal appellate defense counsel for indigents. 
The Legislature provided that the appointment of criminal appellate defense attorneys 
for indigents was to be made by the trial court from the roster provided by the 
Commission or should be referred to the Office of the State Appellate Defender. Since
that time the Appellate Defender Commission has adopted the Michigan Appellate 
Assigned Counsel System Regulations. We have examined those regulations, as 
adopted by the Appellate Defender Commission effective November 15, 1985 and as 
amended January 28, 1988, and, pursuant to our power of general superintending 
control over all courts under Const 1963, art 6, §4, we order the judges of each 
circuit and of the Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit to comply with §3 of those 
regulations. The text of §3 follows: 
(1)The judges of each circuit and of Recorder's Court shall appoint a local 
designating authority who may be responsible for the selection of assigned 
appellate counsel from the local list provided by the appellate assigned counsel 
administrator pursuant to §2(2) of these regulations and who shall perform such 
other tasks in connection with the operation of the list as may be necessary at the 
trial court level.
(a)The designating authority may not be a judge, prosecutor or member of 
the prosecutor's staff, public defender or member of the public defender's 
staff, or any attorney in private practice who currently accepts trial or 
appellate criminal assignments within the jurisdiction. 
(b)Circuits which have contracted with an attorney or group of attorneys to 
provide representation on appeal for indigent defendants shall comply with 
these regulations within one year after the statewide roster becomes 
operational. 
(2)Appellate assignments shall be made by each trial court only from its local list 
or to the State Appellate Defender Office except pursuant to §3(7) of these 
regulations or an order of an appellate court.
(a)Each trial bench shall review its local list and, within 56 days of an 
attorney's appearance on that list, shall notify the appellate assigned counsel 
administrator if it has actual knowledge that the attorney has, within the last 
three years, substantially violated the Minimum Standards for Indigent 
Criminal Appellate Defense Services or the Code of Professional Conduct. Each 
bench shall thereafter notify the administrator[Revised 7/90]of such violations 
by attorneys on its list within 56 days of learning that a violation has 
occurred. 
(b) Upon receiving notice from a trial court that an attorney has substantially 
violated the Minimum Standards or the Code of Professional Conduct, the 
administrator shall promptly review the allegations and take appropriate 
action. Any determination that an attorney should be removed from the roster 
shall be made in compliance with §4(8) of these regulations. 
(3) Appellate counsel shall be assigned within 14 days after a defendant submits a 
timely request. 
(4) In each circuit and Recorder's Court, the chief judge shall determine whether 
appellate assigned counsel are to be selected by the chief judge or by the local 
designating authority.
(a) If the chief judge chooses to retain the discretion to select counsel, he or 
she shall personally exercise that discretion in all cases as described in §3(5). 
(b) If the chief judge chooses to delegate the selection of counsel, the local 
designating authority shall, in all cases, rotate the local list as described in 
§3(6). 
(5) The chief judge may exercise discretion in selecting counsel, subject to the 
following conditions:
(a) Pursuant to §2(2)(d), every third, fourth, or fifth assignment, or such 
other number of assignments as the Appellate Defender Commission may 
determine, shall be made to the State Appellate Defender Office. That office 
may also be assigned out of sequence pursuant to §3(13) or 3(15). 
(b) All other assignments must be made to attorneys whose names appear on 
the trial court's local list. 
(i) The attorney must be eligible for assignment to the particular case, 
pursuant to §4(2). 
(ii) Where a Level I attorney has received an even-numbered amount of 
assignments and any other Level I attorney has less than half that 
number, an assignment shall be offered to each of the latter attorneys 
before any additional assignments are offered to the former. 
(iii) Where a Level II or Level III attorney has received an even-numbered 
amount of assignments and any other Level II or Level III attorney has 
less than half that number, an assignment shall be offered to each of the 
eligible latter attorneys before any additional assignments are offered to 
the former. 
(iv) If an order of appointment is issued and the attorney selected refuses 
the appointment for any reason not constituting a pass for cause as 
defined in §3(6)(c), the assignment shall be counted in the attorney's 
total. 
(6) When directed to select counsel by the chief judge, the local designating 
authority shall select the attorney to be assigned in the following manner:
(a) The local designating authority shall first determine whether assignment is 
to be made to the State Appellate Defender Office, to a particular attorney on 
the local list pursuant to §3(6)(f), 3(12), or 3(13), or by rotation of the local 
list.
(i) Pursuant to §2(2)(d), every third, fourth, or fifth assignment, or such 
other number of assignments as the Appellate Defender Commission may
determine, shall be made to the State Appellate Defender Office. That 
office may also be assigned out of sequence pursuant to §3(13) or 3(15). 
(ii) An attorney whose name appears on the local list may be selected out 
of sequence pursuant to §3(6)(f), 3(12), or 3(13). That attorney's name 
shall then be rotated to the bottom of the list. 
(iii) All other assignments shall be made by rotating the local list. 
(b) Local lists shall be rotated in the following manner:
(i) The local designating authority shall identify the first attorney on the 
list who does not have to be passed for cause and shall obtain an order 
appointing that attorney from the appropriate trial judge. 
(ii) The name of the attorney appointed shall be rotated to the bottom of 
the local list.
(iii) The names of any attorneys passed by the local designating authority 
for cause shall remain in place at the top of the list and shall be 
considered for the next available appointment. 
(c) An attorney's name must be passed for cause in any of the following 
circumstances:
(i) the attorney is not qualified at the eligibility level appropriate to the 
offense as described in §4(2). A Level II or III attorney may be assigned a 
Level I case only if no Level I attorney is available. 
(ii) The attorney represented the defendant at trial or plea and no 
exception for continued representation as specified in §3(12) is to be 
made. 
(iii) Representation of the defendant would create a conflict of interest for 
the attorney. Conflicts of interest shall be deemed to exist between 
codefendants whether they were jointly or separately tried. Codefendants 
may, however, be represented by the same attorney if they express a 
preference for such representation under §3(6)(f) of these 
regulations,provided that there is no apparent conflict of interest. 
(d) An attorney's name may be passed for cause if the defendant has been 
sentenced only to probation or incarceration in the county jail, and the 
attorney's office is located more than 100 miles from the trial court. 
(e) If the attorney selected thereafter declines appointment for reasons which 
constitute a pass for cause, the attorney's name shall be reinstated at the top 
of the list. If the attorney selected declines the appointment for any other 
reason, his or her name shall remain at the point in the rotation order where 
it was placed when the order of appointment was issued. 
(f) When the defendant expresses a preference for counsel whose name 
appears on the local list, and who is eligible and willing to accept the 
appointment, the local designating authority shall honor it. 
(7) Where a complete review of the local list fails to produce the name of an 
attorney eligible and willing to accept appointment in a particular case, the local 
designating authority shall refer the case to the appellate assigned counsel 
administrator for selection of counsel to be assigned from the statewide roster. 
(8) When an attorney has declined to accept three consecutive assignments for 
which the attorney was eligible under these regulations, the local designating 
authority may request the appellate assigned counsel administrator to remove the 
attorney's name from the jurisdiction's local list. 
(9) The trial court shall maintain, on forms provided by the Appellate Assigned 
Counsel System, records which accurately reflect the basis on which all 
assignments have been made, whether by the chief judge or the local designating 
authority, and shall provide duplicates of those records to the Appellate Assigned 
Counsel System at regular intervals specified by the administrator. 
(10) The local designating authority shall provide copies of each order appointing 
appellate counsel and written evidence of each defendant's request for counsel, 
including any waiver executed pursuant to § 3(12). 
(11) All assignments other than those made to the State Appellate Defender 
Office shall be considered personal to the individual attorney named in the order 
of appointment and shall not be attributed to a partnership or firm. 
(12) When the defendant specifically requests the appointment of his or her trial 
attorney for purposes of appeal and the trial attorney is otherwise eligible and 
willing to accept the assignment, the defendant shall be advised by the trial judge 
of the potential consequences of continuous representation. If the defendant 
thereafter maintains a preference for appellate representation by trial counsel, the 
advice given and the defendant's waiver of the opportunity to receive new counsel 
on appeal shall appear on a form signed by the defendant. Appropriate forms shall 
be supplied to the trial courts by the Appellate Assigned Counsel System. 
Where counsel represents the defendant on a currently pending appeal of another 
conviction, or represented the defendant on appeal of a prior conviction for the 
same offense, the designating authority may select that attorney out of sequence 
to conduct a subsequent appeal on the defendant's behalf if that attorney is 
otherwise eligible and willing to accept the additional appointment. 
(14)Where the trial judge determines that a Level I or II case is sufficiently more 
complex than the average case of its type to warrant appointment of an attorney 
classified at a higher level than required by §4(2), the judge shall provide to the 
chief judge or the local designating authority a written statement of the level 
believed to be appropriate and the reasons for that determination. The local 
designating authority shall, and the chief judge in his or her discretion may, select 
counsel accordingly. 
(15)When, in exceptional circumstances, the complexity of the case or the 
economic hardship the appeal would cause the county makes the selection of 
private assigned counsel impractical, the State Appellate Defender Officer may, 
after confirmation of that office's ability to accept the assignment, be selected for 
appointment out of sequence. When such an out-of-sequence assignment is 
made, it shall be treated as a substitute for the next in-sequence assignment the 
State Appellate Defender Office would have otherwise received. 
[Statement by Boyle, J., appears at 432 Mich cxxvii.] 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1989-4
On order of the Court, the probate courts for the Counties of Calhoun, Kalamazoo and 
Oceana are authorized until further order of this Court, to conduct an experimental 
program which will utilize facsimile communication equipment to transmit petitions, 
physicians' certificates and other supporting documents from the Kalamazoo Regional 
Psychiatric Hospital for filing in the aforementioned courts. In all cases, the court will 
consider the documents filed when they are received by the facsimile equipment, and 
the court will initiate all notices so that the hearings are held within the time frames 
required by the Mental Health Code and Rules. 
The facsimile documents shall be file-stamped when received and treated like an 
original, until the original documents are received by mail. If the original is not 
received within five days, the facsimile documents shall be copied on ordinary paper. 
When the original documents are received by mail, the court shall file-stamp the 
originals with the date they were received and place them in the court file. A 
statement shall also be placed in the file, itemizing the documents received by 
facsimile, and indicating the date received. After comparing the facsimile documents 
with the original documents, the facsimile documents and any copies thereof shall be 
discarded. 
The State Court Administrative Office shall provide assistance in the implementation 
of the pilot project and shall conduct an evaluation of the experimental program after 
the individual courts submit a report on the pilot project within 15 days after June 
30,1990. The pilot courts shall cooperate with the State Court Administrative Office. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1990-1
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2000-3 - Reporter. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1990-2
Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts
On order of the Court, Administrative Order No. 1987-3 is vacated and this order 
replaces it. The provisions of this order are adopted February 21, 1990, effective 
immediately. 
1.Lawyer Trust Account Program. The Board of Trustees of the Michigan State Bar 
Foundation has been designated and has agreed to organize and administer the 
Lawyer Trust Account Program. 
2.Powers and Duties. 
(A) The Board shall have general supervisory authority over the administration of 
the Lawyer Trust Account Program. 
(B) The Board shall receive funds from lawyers' interest-bearing trust accounts 
established in accordance with MRPC 1.15 of the Code of Professional Conduct 
and shall make appropriate temporary investments of such funds pending 
disbursement of them. 
(C) The Board shall, by grants and appropriations it deems appropriate, disburse 
*[See modification pursuant to Administartive Order No.1994-8 - Reporter] funds 
as follows:
(1) 10 percent of the net proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to 
support programs to promote improvements in the administration of justice, 
provided that one half of such disbursements shall be to the Michigan 
Supreme Court to support implementation, within the judiciary, of the 
recommendations of the Task Force on Gender Issues in the Courts and the 
Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Courts; 
(2) 45 percent of the net proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to 
support the delivery of civil legal services to the poor; and 
(3) 45 percent of the net proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to 
fund the appointment of counsel for indigent persons in criminal cases in the 
following manner:
(a) 25 percent of the net proceeds to fund counsel for indigents in felony 
cases in circuit courts and the Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit to be 
distributed by the State Court Administrative Office in accordance with 
felony caseload statistics maintained by that office; 
(b)20 percent of the net proceeds to fund appointment of counsel to 
prepare, on behalf of indigent defendants in criminal cases, applications 
for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court pursuant to rules to be 
promulgated by the Court. 
(D)The Board shall maintain proper books and records of all Program receipts and 
disbursements and shall have them audited annually by a certified public 
accountant. The Board shall annually within 90 days after the close of its fiscal 
year cause to be presented an audited financial statement of its Program receipts 
and expenditures for the year. The statement shall be filed with the clerk of this 
Court and shall be published in the next available issue of the Michigan Bar 
Journal. 
(E)The Board shall monitor the operation of the Lawyer Trust Account Program, 
propose to this Court changes in this order or in MRPC 1.15, and may, subject to 
approval by this Court, adopt and publish such instructions or guidelines not 
inconsistent with this order which it deems necessary to administer the Lawyer 
Trust Account Program. 
3. Executive Director. 
(A) The Board may appoint an executive director of the Lawyer Trust Account 
Program to serve on a full- or part-time basis at the pleasure of the Board. The 
executive director shall be paid such compensation as is fixed by the Board. 
(B) The executive director shall be responsible and accountable to the Board for 
the proper administration of this Program. 
(C) The executive director may employ persons or contract for services as the 
Board may approve.
4. Compensation and Expenses of the Board. 
(A) The President and other members of the Board shall administer the Lawyer 
Trust Account Program without compensation, but shall be paid their reasonable 
and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. 
(B) All expenses of the operation of the Lawyer Trust Account Program shall be 
paid from funds which the Board receives from the Program. 
(C) The Board may borrow from the State Bar of Michigan or a commercial lender 
monies needed to finance the operation of the Lawyer Trust Account Program 
from the time it is constituted until the Program becomes operational. Any sum so 
borrowed shall be repaid, together with interest at prevailing market rates, as 
promptly as the initial receipts from the Program permit.
5.Disposition of Funds Upon Dissolution. If the Program or its administration by the 
Michigan State Bar Foundation is discontinued, any Program funds then on hand shall 
be transferred in accordance with the order of this Court terminating the Program or 
its administration by the Michigan State Bar Foundation. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1990-3
In re Recommendations of the Task Force on Gender Issues in the Courts and 
the Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Courts
In September, 1987, the Michigan Supreme Court appointed two nineteen-member 
task forces to examine the court system and to recommend changes to assure equal 
treatment for men and women, free from race or gender bias. The task forces were 
the Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Courts and the Task Force on Gender 
Issues in the Courts. 
The task forces submitted their final reports to this Court in December, 1989. They 
made a total of 167 recommendations for eliminating bias in the courtroom and 
among court personnel, in professional organizations, and in legal education. Many of 
these proposals can be implemented fairly quickly. Others will require long-range 
planning. All merit serious consideration. 
This Court is in the process of reviewing all of the recommendations in order to 
determine the appropriate steps to be taken. We are persuaded upon preliminary 
examination that several of the proposals ought to be acted upon immediately. 
Therefore, we direct: 
That judges, employees of the judicial system, attorneys and other court officers 
commit themselves to the elimination of racial, ethnic and gender discrimination in 
the Michigan judicial system; 
That the State Bar of Michigan review the process for this Court's appointment of 
members of the Board of Commissioners of the State Bar and recommend to this 
Court whether the process should be changed in order to assure full participation by 
women and minority lawyers; 
That the State Bar of Michigan make recommendations to this Court with regard to 
the proposals by the task forces that the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code 
of Judicial Conduct be amended to specifically prohibit sexual harassment and 
invidious discrimination; 
That members of the State Bar of Michigan support the Michigan Minority 
Demonstration Project and the American Bar Association Minority Demonstration 
Project; and 
That the Michigan Judicial Institute continue its efforts to eliminate gender and 
racial/ethnic bias in the court environment through the education of judges, court 
administrators and others. 
This Court is committed to assuring the fair and equal application of the rule of law for 
all persons in the Michigan court system. To that end, we support the principles that 
underlie the 167 recommendations that have been made. We are indebted to the 
thirty-eight men and women who gave of their time and talents to serve on the two 
task forces, and commend them for their dedication. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1990-4
Pilot Project for District Court Judges Accepting Guilty Pleas in Felony Cases
[Rescinded, effective January 1, 2006.] 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1990-7
Videotape Record of Court Proceedings
[Rescinded, effective December 12, 2006]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1990-8
Use of Facsimile Communication Equipment in Mental Health Proceedings
Until further order of the court, the probate courts in the Kalamazoo Regional 
Psychiatric Hospital catchment area are authorized to utilize facsimile communication 
equipment to transmit petitions, physician's certificates and other supporting 
documents from the Kalamazoo Regional Psychiatric Hospital for filing in the courts. 
Participation by the probate courts listed below shall be subject to the discretion of 
the Chief Judge of the probate court and with the approval of the State Court 
Administrator. 
The probate courts in the Kalamazoo Regional Psychiatric Hospital catchment area are 
located in the following counties: Allegan, Barry, Benzie, Berrien, Calhoun, Cass, 
Gratiot, Ionia, Kalamazoo, Kent, Lake, Manistee, Mason, Mecosta, Montcalm, 
Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, Osceola, Ottawa, St. Joseph, and Van Buren. 
In all cases, the court will consider the documents filed when they are received by the 
facsimile equipment, and the court will initiate all notices so that the hearings are 
held within the time frames required by the Mental Health Code and Rules. 
The facsimile documents shall be file-stamped when received and treated like an 
original, until the original documents are received by mail. If the original is not 
received within five days, the facsimile documents shall be copied on ordinary paper. 
When the original documents are received by mail, the court shall file-stamp the 
originals with the date they were received and place them in the court file. A 
statement shall also be placed in the file, itemizing the documents received by 
facsimile and indicating the date received. After comparing the facsimile documents 
with the original documents, the facsimile documents and any copies thereof shall be 
discarded. 
The State Court Administrative Office shall assist in the implementation of the use of 
facsimile equipment in mental health proceedings for those courts electing to 
participate. 
The State Court Administrative Office shall review the pilot projects after the 
participating courts submit a report within 15 days after November 1, 1991. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1990-9
Voice and Facsimile Communication Equipment for the Transmission and 
Filing of Court Documents
Administrative Order 1990-9 is rescinded, effective January 1, 2004. See MCR 2.406. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1991-1
Use of Facsimile Communication Equipment in Mental Health Proceedings
Until further order of the court, all Michigan probate courts are authorized to utilize 
facsimile communication equipment to transmit petitions, physician's certificates and 
other supporting documents from the state regional psychiatric hospitals for filing in 
the courts. 
Participation by Michigan probate courts shall be subject to the discretion of the Chief 
Judge of the probate court and with the approval of the State Court Administrator. 
In all cases, the probate court will consider the documents filed when they are 
received by the facsimile equipment, and the probate court will initiate all notices so 
that the hearings are held within the time frames required by the Mental Health Code 
and Court Rules. 
The facsimile documents shall be file-stamped when received and treated like 
originals, until the original documents are received by mail. If the originals are not 
received within five days, the facsimile documents shall be copied on ordinary paper. 
When the original documents are received by mail, the probate court shall file-stamp 
the originals with the date they are received and place them in the court file. A 
statement shall also be placed in the file itemizing the documents received by
facsimile and indicating the date received. After comparing the facsimile documents 
with the original documents, the facsimile documents and any copies thereof shall be 
discarded. 
The State Court Administrative Office shall assist in the implementation of the use of 
facsimile equipment in mental health proceedings for those courts electing to 
participate. 
The State Court Administrative Office shall review the pilot project after the 
participating courts submit a report within 15 days after January 1, 1992. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1991-2
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2000-3 - Reporter

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1991-4
Caseflow Management
Administrative Order No. 1991-4 is rescinded, effective January 1, 2004. See 
Administrative Order 2003.7. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1991-5
Pilot Projects for District Court Judges Accepting Guilty Pleas in Felony Cases
On order of the Court, Administrative Order No. 1991-5 is rescinded, effective 
January 1, 2006. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1991-7
Election Procedures for Judicial Members of the Judicial Tenure Commission
Administrative Order No. 1980-3 is hereby rescinded, and the following procedure is 
established for the election of judicial members of the Judicial Tenure Commission. 
Each year in which the term of a commissioner selected by the judges of the courts of 
this state expires, the State Court Administrator shall send a notice to all judges 
eligible to vote for the commissioner position to be filled that they may nominate 
judges to fill the position. The notice, with a nominating petition, shall be mailed 
before July 17, with the instruction that, to be valid, nominating petitions must be 
filed at the office of the administrator in Lansing before September 1. 
For a judge to be nominated petitions must be signed by at least ten judges eligible to 
vote for the nominee, except that a judge of the Court of Appeals may be nominated 
by petitions signed by five judges of that court. The administrator shall determine the 
validity of each nomination. 
Before September 20, the administrator shall mail a ballot to every judge eligible to 
vote. A ballot will not be counted unless marked and returned in a sealed envelope 
addressed to the office of the administrator in Lansing with a postmark of not later 
than October 20. 
In the event there is only one nominee, a ballot will not be mailed, and the nominee 
will be declared elected. The State Court Administrator will certify the declared 
election to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Clerk and 
Executive Director of the Judicial Tenure Commission before December 15. 
The administrator or designee, and three tellers appointed by the administrator, shall 
canvass the ballots and certify the count to the Supreme Court Clerk before 
November 1. The nominee receiving the highest number of votes will be declared 
elected. If there is a tie vote, the administrator shall mail a second ballot, consisting 
of those nominees receiving the highest count, by November 1. 
The second ballot must be marked and returned in a sealed envelope addressed to 
the office of the administrator in Lansing with a postmark of not later than November 
30. The four tellers shall canvass these second ballots and, if a tie vote still results,
they shall determine the successful nominee by lot. They shall certify the count or the 
result of the selection by lot to the Supreme Court Clerk before December 15. 
If a vacancy occurs or is impending, the judicial tenure commission shall notify the 
administrator promptly. The procedure set forth above shall be followed, except that 
time limits may be shortened to insure that the election occurs within 90 days, and 
the dates set forth above shall not be applicable. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1991-8
State Judicial Council
[Rescinded effective February 23, 2006.]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1992-1
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2000-3 - Reporter. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1992-2
Court of Appeals Docketing Statement
On order of the Court, the Court of Appeals is authorized to require appellants in that 
Court to file a docketing statement in appeals of right. The Court of Appeals will 
supply the docketing statement form after the appeal has been filed. This requirement 
will govern appeals of right filed after April 1, 1992. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1992-3
Use of Facsimile Equipment in Mental Health Proceedings
Until further order of the Court, all Michigan probate courts are authorized to utilize 
facsimile communication equipment to transmit petitions, physician's certificates and 
other supporting documents from the state regional psychiatric hospitals or private 
hospitals for filing in the courts. 
Participation by Michigan probate courts shall be subject to the discretion of the Chief 
Judge of the probate court and with the approval of the State Court Administrator. 
In all cases, the probate court will consider the documents filed when they are 
received by the facsimile equipment, and the probate court will initiate all notices so 
that the hearings are held within the time frames required by the Mental Health Code 
and Court Rules. 
The facsimile documents shall be file-stamped when received and treated like an 
original, until the original documents are received by mail. If the original is not 
received within five days, the facsimile documents shall be copied on ordinary paper. 
When the original documents are received by mail, the probate court shall file-stamp 
the originals with the date they are received and place them in the court file. A 
statement shall also be placed in the file, itemizing the documents received by 
facsimile and indicating the date received. After comparing the facsimile documents 
with the original documents, the facsimile documents and any copies thereof shall be 
discarded. 
The State Court Administrative Office shall assist in the implementation of the use of 
facsimile equipment in mental health proceedings for those courts electing to 
participate. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1992-4
[Rescinded by Administrative Order 1993-5]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1992-5
District Court Judges Accepting Pleas in Felony Cases
On order of the Court, Administrative Order No. 1992-5 is rescinded, effective 
January 1, 2006. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1992-6
On order of the Court, Administrative Order No. 1991-9 is amended to read as 
follows: 
For the purpose of addressing the serious problem of the volume of cases presently 
awaiting disposition in the Court of Appeals, it is hereby ordered that the provision of 
MCR 7.201(D) which requires that only one temporary judge may sit on a three-judge 
panel is suspended. This suspension is for the limited purpose of permitting the 
assignment of panels of former judges of the Court of Appeals and former justices of 
the Supreme Court. In all other respects the aforementioned provision of MCR 
7.201(D) shall remain in effect. The suspension of MCR 7.201(D) for the limited 
purpose which is provided for in this order shall be effective until September 30, 
1993. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1993-1
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2000-3 - Reporter. Revised 7/94] 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1993-2
In re: Silicone Gel Implant Product Liability Litigation
On order of the Court, it appearing that a large number of actions have been filed 
alleging personal injuries due to silicone gel implant devices, and that coordination of 
pretrial proceedings in those cases will promote the economical and expeditious 
resolution of that litigation, pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, §4, we direct all state 
courts to follow the procedures set forth in this administrative order. 
1.This order applies to all pending and future personal injury silicone gel implant 
product liability actions pending or to be filed in Michigan courts other than the 
Third Judicial Circuit. For the purposes of this order, "silicone gel implant product 
liability actions" include all cases in which it is alleged that a party has suffered 
personal injury or economic loss caused by any silicone gel implant, regardless of 
the theory of recovery. Until the transfer of the action under paragraph 2 of this 
order, the parties to such an action shall include the words "Implant Case" on the 
top right-hand corner of the first page of any papers subsequently filed in this 
action. 
2.Each court in which a silicone gel implant product liability action is pending shall 
enter an order changing venue of the action to the Third Judicial Circuit within 14 
days of the date of this order. Upon the filing of a new silicone gel implant product 
liability action, the court shall enter an order changing venue to the Third Judicial 
Circuit within 14 days after the action is filed. The court shall send a copy of the 
order to the State Court Administrator. A party who objects to the transfer of an 
action under this paragraph may raise the objection by filing a motion in the Third 
Judicial Circuit. Such a motion must be filed within 14 days after the transfer of 
the action. Nothing in this order shall be construed as a finding that venue is 
proper in Wayne County. 
3.Proceedings in each action transferred under this order shall be conducted in 
accordance with the Initial Case Management Order entered in Third Circuit Civil 
Action Number 93-302061 NP on February 8, 1993, and such further orders as 
may be entered by the Third Judicial Circuit. The Third Judicial Circuit shall 
cooperate with the State Court Administrator in monitoring the proceedings in the 
actions. Orders entered by the court in which the action was originally filed that 
are inconsistent with orders entered by the Third Judicial Circuit are superseded. 
4.After the close of discovery, the Third Judicial Circuit shall conduct a settlement 
conference or conferences. If settlement is not reached as to all claims, the Third 
Judicial Circuit shall enter an order changing venue to the court in which the 
action was originally filed, or if appropriate to some other court, for further 
proceedings. A copy of the order shall be sent to the State Court Administrator. 
5.Depositions taken in In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Products Liability 
Litigation (MDL-926), Master File No. CV 92-P-10000-S (ND Ala) (hereinafter 
mdl), may be used in any actions governed by Third Judicial Circuit case 
management orders as provided in this paragraph notwithstanding that they were 
not taken in these actions. Such depositions may be used against a party in a 
Michigan state court action who is not also a party in an mdl proceeding only if 
the party proposing to use the mdl deposition gives written notice of that 
intention. 
The notice shall specifically designate the portions of the mdl deposition to be 
used and the noticing party must provide a transcript of the testimony being 
offered and a copy of the videotape of the deposition, if any, to the party against 
whom the deposition is proposed to be offered. That party may file a motion for 
further examination of the mdl witness, specifying the subjects as to which further 
examination is sought. If the motion is granted, the further deposition of the mdl 
witness may cover only those subjects designated in the order. The judge of the 
Third Judicial Circuit shall specify the times within which notices and motions 
under this paragraph may be filed. 
6.If discovery proceedings have been conducted in an action prior to a transfer 
under this order, those discovery materials remain part of the record in the action 
in which they were produced, and may be used in further proceedings where 
otherwise appropriate notwithstanding the transfer under this rule. The materials 
are not part of the record in other cases governed by Third Judicial Circuit case 
management orders. 
7.MCR 2.222, MCR 2.223, and MCR 2.224 do not apply to changes of venue 
pursuant to this order. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1993-3
Pilot Project to Implement the Recommendations of the Commission on 
Courts in the 21st Century
[Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2004-2.]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1993-5
[Rescinded by Administrative Order 2004-1]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1994-2
Facsimile and Communication Equipment for the Filing and Transmission of 
Court Documents
Administrative Order 1990-9 is rescinded, effective January 1, 2004. See MCR 2.406.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1994-4
Resolution of Conflicts in Court of Appeals Decisions
Administrative Order No. 1994-4 is repealed, effective September 1, 1997. See MCR 
7.215(H). 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1994-5
Probate Fee Schedule
Administrative Order No. 1994-5 is rescinded, effective July 1, 1995. See 
Administrative Order No. 1995-2.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1994-6
Reductions in Trial Court Budgets by Funding Units
On order of the Court, it appearing that a number of court funding units have reduced 
their original appropriations for the courts for the current fiscal year, this 
administrative order, applicable to all trial courts as defined in MCR 8.110(A), is 
adopted effective September 16, 1994. 
1.If a court is notified by its funding unit of a reduction of the original 
appropriation for the court for the current fiscal year, the court shall immediately 
file a copy of that notice with the State Court Administrative Office. 
2.Within 10 days after filing the notice, the chief judge must provide the following 
to the State Court Administrative Office Regional Administrator:
a.A copy of the court's original budget.
b.A copy of a revised budget in light of the reduced appropriation.
c.A statement of the amount of the reduction in court revenue by source, and 
a statement of anticipated revenues for the remainder of this fiscal year by 
source. 
d.A budget reduction plan to reduce court operations in light of anticipated 
reductions in revenue, and an impact statement describing, 
i.Any anticipated reduction in the trial court work force that would be 
required. 
ii.Any anticipated reduction in court hours that would be required. 
iii.Any anticipated reductions in revenues that are anticipated, by source 
and by recipient. 
iv.The impact on other entities that would occur, including at a minimum 
potential service reductions, work flow backlogs, and revenue shortfalls. 
Other entities to be reviewed should include, at a minimum, the youth 
home (if any), the local jail, the prosecuting attorney (county and 
municipal), local law enforcement agencies, community mental health 
agencies, and county clerk's office. 
v.The schedule to be used for implementing reductions and for distributing 
notices to employees, other agencies, etc., and the date funds are 
estimated to be depleted under the revised budget plan. 
e.An emergency services plan which outlines what services are essential and 
must be provided by the court. The emergency services plan should consider 
services which at a minimum will preserve rights guaranteed by the Michigan 
and U.S. Constitutions, and those guaranteed by statute. 
If a copy of such a notice of reduction of appropriation has already been sent to 
the State Court Administrative Office, the additional information required by this 
section must be provided within 10 days of the effective date of this order. The 
State Court Administrative Office may grant an extension of time in its sole 
discretion. 
3.After reviewing the revised budget and impact statement a designee of the 
State Court Administrator shall meet with the chief judge to discuss 
implementation of the plan and any anticipated need for assistance from other 
courts to assure provision of emergency services. Thereafter, the implementation 
of the plan shall begin immediately. 
4.The State Court Administrative Office shall monitor the implementation of the 
plan. The chief judge shall notify the SCAO when budgeted funds are anticipated 
to be depleted and the date the emergency services plan filed pursuant to this 
order will be implemented.
5.The State Court Administrator shall reassign sitting judges as necessary to 
ensure as nearly as possible the maximum use of judicial resources in light of 
reduced operations, and to assist in the provision of emergency services to 
affected trial courts. 
6.The procedures set forth in Administrative Order No. 1985-6 are not affected by 
this order and must be followed before the court may institute litigation against 
the funding unit. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1994-8
Allocation of Funds From Lawyer Trust Account Program
On order of the Court, effective October 4, 1994, until further order of the Court, 
Administrative Order No. 1990-2 is modified so as to provide that the funds to be 
distributed by the Board of Trustees of the Michigan State Bar Foundation shall be 
disbursed as follows: 
1.50 percent of the net proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to support 
the delivery of civil legal services to the poor; 
2.20 percent of the net proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program for 
criminal indigent services and other purposes which the Supreme Court deems 
appropriate;
3.15 percent of the net proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to support 
programs to promote improvements in the administration of justice;
4.10 percent of the net proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to support 
implementation, within the judiciary, of the recommendations of the Task Force 
on Gender Issues in the Courts and the Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the 
Courts; and
5.5 percent of the net proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to support 
the activities of the Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society.
Administrative Order No. 1991-10 is rescinded. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1994-9
Suspension of Interest on Delinquent Costs Imposed in Attorney Discipline 
Proceedings
The Attorney Discipline Board has proposed that a 60-day period be provided during 
which interest would not be assessed on costs paid by suspended or disbarred 
attorneys who are in default on their obligations to pay costs in connection with 
discipline proceedings. On order of the Court, we authorize the Attorney Discipline 
Board to notify persons delinquent in payment of costs that interest will not be 
assessed if the costs are paid within 60 days of the date of the notice.
 
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1994-10
On May 4, 1994, the Governor signed House Bill 4227, concerning discovery by the 
prosecution of certain information known to the defendant in a criminal case. 1994 PA 
113, MCL 767.94a; MSA 28.1023(194a). On November 16, 1994, this Court 
promulgated MCR 6.201, which is a comprehensive treatment of the subject of 
discovery in criminal cases. 
On order of the Court, effective January 1, 1995, discovery in criminal cases heard in 
the courts of this state is governed by MCR 6.201 and not by MCL 767.94a; MSA 
28.1023(194a). Const 1963, art 6, §5; MCR 1.104. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1994-11
Summary Jury Trial
On order of the Court, the provisions of Administrative Order No. 1988-2, regarding a 
summary jury trial procedure, are continued in effect until June 30, 1995.


ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1995-1
On order of the Court, the terms and conditions of Administrative Order No. 1992-6 
are continued in effect until October 1, 1995. This Court will, in the near future, 
appoint a committee to examine the continuing need for use of judges, other than 
sitting Court of Appeals judges, to assist the Court of Appeals in processing its 
caseload. The committee will be asked to report its findings to this Court no later than 
June 1, 1995. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1995-2
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2003-5, effective immediately. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1995-3
Summary Jury Trial
On order of the Court, the provisions of Administrative Order No. 1988-2, regarding a 
summary jury trial procedure, are continued in effect until June 30, 1997. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1995-4
On order of the Court, the terms and conditions of Administrative Order No.1992-6 
are continued in effect until December 31, 1995. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1995-5
Reciprocal Visiting Judge Assignments for Judges of the Third Judicial Circuit 
and Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit
On order of the Court, Administrative Order No.1986-1 is rescinded, effective 
[Revised 4/96] immediately. In addition, Joint Administrative Order No. 1986-1 for 
the Third Judicial Circuit Court and the Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit and 
Joint Local Court Rule 6.102 for the Third Judicial Circuit and Recorder's Court for the 
City of Detroit are vacated effective immediately. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1995-6
On order of the Court, the terms and conditions of Administrative Order No.1992-6 
are extended until March 31, 1996. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1996-1
Authorization of Demonstration Projects to Study Court Consolidation
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2004-2.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1996-2
Authorization of Demonstration Projects to Study Court Consolidation
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2004-2.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1996-3
On order of the Court, the terms and conditions of Administrative Order No. 1992-6 
are extended until September 30, 1996. 
Riley, J., would not extend the terms and conditions of Administrative Order No.1992-

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1996-4
Resolution of Conflicts in Court of Appeals Decisions
On order of the Court, the terms and conditions of Administrative Order No. 1994-4 
are continued in effect until the further order of this Court. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1996-5
Authorization of Demonstration Projects to Study Court Consolidation
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2004-2.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1996-6
Authorization of Demonstration Projects to Study Court Consolidation
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2004-2.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1996-7
Authorization of Demonstration Projects to Study Court Consolidation
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2004-2.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1996-8
On order of the Court, for the purpose of the 1996 election of members of the State 
Bar Board of Commissioners and the Representative Assembly, the deadlines 
expressed in State Bar Rules 5, §4 and 6, §4 are extended as follows: Petitions are to 
be filed by May 31, 1996; ballots are to be mailed to everyone entitled to vote by 
June 17, 1996; ballots are to be returned bearing a postmark date not later than July 
1, 1996. This administrative order governs the 1996 election only. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1996-9
Authorization of Demonstration Projects to Study Court Consolidation
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2004-2.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1996-10
On order of the Court, the terms and conditions of Administrative Order No. 1992-6 
are extended until March 31, 1997. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1996-11
Hiring of Relatives by Courts
In order to ensure that the Michigan judiciary is able to attract and retain the highest 
quality work force, and make most effective use of its personnel, it is ordered that the 
following anti-nepotism policy is effective December 1, 1996, for all courts of this 
state. 
1.Purpose 
This anti-nepotism policy is adopted to avoid conflicts of interest, the possibility or 
appearance of favoritism, morale problems, and the potential for emotional 
interference with job performance. 
2.Application 
This policy applies to all full-time and part-time non-union employees, temporary 
employees, contractual employment, including independent contractors, student
interns, and personal service contracts. This policy also applies to all applicants for 
employment regardless of whether the position applied for is union or non-union. 
3.Definitions 
a)As used in this policy, the term "Relative" is defined to include spouse, child, 
parent, brother, sister, grandparent, grandchild, first cousin, uncle, aunt, niece, 
nephew, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, mother-inlaw,
 and father-in-law, whether natural, adopted, step or foster. 
b)As used in this policy, "State Court System" is defined to include all courts and 
agencies enumerated in Const 1963, art 6, §1 and the Revised Judicature Act of 
1961, MCL 600.101 et seq.; MSA 27A.101 et seq. 
c)As used in this policy, the term "Court Administrator" is defined to include the 
highest level administrator, clerk or director of the court or agency who functions 
under the general direction of the chief justice or chief judge, such as, state court 
administrator, agency director, circuit court administrator, friend of the court, 
probate court administrator, juvenile court administrator, probate register and 
district court administrator/clerk. 
4.Prohibitions 
a)Relatives of justices, judges or court administrators shall not be employed 
within the same court or judicial entity. This prohibition does not bar the 
assignment of judges and retired judges by the Supreme Court to serve in any 
other court in this state for a limited period or specific assignment, provided those 
assigned shall not participate in any employment related matters or decisions in 
the court to which they are assigned. 
b)Relatives of employees not employed as justices, judges or court administrators 
shall not be employed, whether by hire, appointment, transfer or promotion, in 
any court within the state court system (i) where one person has any degree of 
supervisory authority over the other, whether direct or indirect; (ii) where the 
employment would create favoritism or a conflict of interest or the appearance of 
favoritism or a conflict of interest; or (iii) for reasons of confidentiality. 
c)Should two employees become relatives by reason of marriage or other legal 
relationship after employment, if possible, one employee shall be required to 
transfer to another court within the state court system if the transfer would 
eliminate the violation. If a transfer is not possible or if the violation cannot be 
eliminated, one employee shall be required to resign. The decision as to which 
employee shall transfer or resign may be made by the employees. If the 
employees fail to decide between themselves within thirty days of becoming 
relatives, the employee with the least seniority shall be required to transfer or 
resign. However, if one of the two employees holds an elective office, is a judge 
or is covered by a union contract, the other employee shall be required to transfer 
or resign. 
5.Required Submissions 
If any person, whether employed by hire, appointment, or election, contemplates the 
creation of a contractual relationship that may implicate this policy, whether directly 
or [Revised 3/99]indirectly, the proposed contract shall be submitted to the State 
Court Administrative Office for review to ensure compliance with this policy. 
6.Required Disclosure 
All current employees, including persons who are elected or appointed, shall disclose 
in writing to the State Court Administrative Office the existence of any familial 
relationship as described in this policy within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this 
policy or creation of the relationship, whichever is sooner. 
7.Affected Employees 
This policy shall not apply to any person who is an employee of the state court system 
on December 1, 1996, except that from December 1, 1996, forward, no person shall 
be transferred or promoted or enter into a nepotic relationship in violation of this 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-1
Implementation of the Family Division of the Circuit Court
Administrative Order No. 1997-1 was rescinded, effective January 28, 2003. See 
Administrative Order No. 2003-2-Reporter. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-2
Suspension of License to Practice Law|Pursuant to 1996 PA 236,1996 PA 238 
and 1996 PA 239
On order of the Court, in light of 1996 PA 236, 1996 PA 238 and 1996 PA 239, we 
authorize circuit courts to issue suspensions of licenses to practice law subject to the 
conditions specified in the above-mentioned legislative enactments. The order shall be 
effective upon entry by the circuit court. The Office of the Friend of the Court shall 
send a copy of the suspension order or rescission of a prior suspension order to the 
Clerk of the Supreme Court, the State Court Administrative Office, the State Bar of 
Michigan, the Attorney Grievance Commission, and the Attorney Discipline Board. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-3
Assignment of Medical Support Enforcement Matters to the Third Circuit for 
Discovery Purposes
Administrative Order No. 1997-3 was rescinded, effective January 21, 1999. See 
Administrative Order No. 1999-1. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-4
Appointment of Executive Chief Judge for Third Circuit Court and Recorder's 
Court; Establishment of Executive Committee
On order of the Court, it appearing that the administration of justice would be served 
by the appointment of an Executive Chief Judge to oversee the administration of the 
Third Circuit Court and Recorder's Court in order to facilitate the orderly transition to 
a single court; it is ordered that the Honorable Michael F. Sapala is appointed as 
Executive Chief Judge of the Third Circuit and Recorder's Courts, effective 
immediately. 
The Executive Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court and Recorder's Court has all of 
the responsibility and authority of chief judge pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 8.110 
and as otherwise indicated in the Michigan Court Rules. 
The Chief Judge of the Recorder's Court and Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court 
shall continue to have responsibility for docket management, facilities and security, 
day to day management of personnel, budget and purchasing activity, and other 
responsibilities delegated by the Executive Chief Judge. 
It is further ordered, that effective October 1, 1997, the Honorable Michael F. Sapala 
shall be the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court. 
It is further ordered, effective immediately, that an executive committee of the Third 
Circuit Court and Recorder's Court is established to provide assistance to the 
Executive Chief Judge in developing administrative policy. The Chief Justice shall 
appoint members of the executive committee from the benches of the Third Circuit 
Court and Recorder's Court. Effective October 1, 1997, and until further order of this 
Court, the executive committee shall serve the Third Circuit Court, and shall provide 
assistance to the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-5
Defenders - Third Circuit Court
The Court has determined that the efficient administration of justice requires the 
extension of the provisions of Administrative Order No. 1972-2 to criminal matters 
coming before the Third Circuit Court after the merger of the Third Circuit Court and 
Recorder's Court on October 1, 1997. It is therefore ordered that effective October 1, 
1997, and until further order of the Court, that the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit 
Court shall provide for the assignment as counsel, on a weekly basis, of the Legal Aid 
and Defender Association in twenty-five percent of all cases wherein counsel are 
appointed for indigent defendants. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-6
Chief Judge Responsibilities; Local Court Management Councils; Disputes 
between Courts and Their Funding Units or Local Court Management Councils
Administrative Order No. 1997-6 was rescinded, effective December 28, 1998. See 
Administrative Order No. 1998-5. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-7
Establishment of Child Support Coordinating Council
On order of the Court, the following order is effective immediately. 
As part of its adjudication of domestic relations and juvenile cases, the judicial branch 
of government plays an integral role in the delivery of programs affecting Michigan's 
families, including those involving child support. Recognizing the importance of the 
judiciary's role in family matters, this Court has previously directed the issuance of 
requirements and guidelines for the implementation and operation of the family 
division of the circuit court. 
The Court recognizes the importance of meeting its unique responsibilities toward 
Michigan's families in the most effective manner. Therefore, the Judiciary seeks to 
complement its independent adjudicative authority with the ability to provide 
seamless and cost effective service to the public through greater direct coordination 
with the executive branch of government concerning programs affecting families. To 
that end, we now direct, in partnership with the executive branch of government, that 
an interbranch council be formed to provide coordination regarding Michigan's child 
support program. 
It is therefore ordered, concurrent with the Executive Order issued today by Governor 
John Engler, that the Child Support Coordinating Council is established.
The Council is advisory in nature and is charged with the following responsibilities:
1.To establish statewide program goals and objectives for the child support 
program. 
2.To review and recommend child support program policy. 
3.To share information on program issues. 
4.To analyze and recommend state positions on pending and proposed changes in 
court rules and federal and state legislation. 
The Council shall consist of ten (10) members, five (5) appointed by the Governor, 
one of whom shall be the Director of the Office of Child Support in the Family 
Independence Agency, and five (5) appointed by the Chief Justice, one of whom shall 
be the State Court Administrator. The Director of the Child Support Enforcement 
System shall be an ex-officio member. 
The term of appointment is two years, except that of those first appointed, two 
appointees of the Governor and three appointees of the Chief Justice shall be 
appointed to a term of one year. Reappointment is at the discretion of the respective 
appointing authorities. 
Chairmanship of the Council shall rotate in alternate calendar years. The Director of 
the Office of Child Support shall serve as chairperson in even-numbered years and the 
State Court Administrator shall serve as chairperson in odd-numbered years. When 
not serving as Chair of the Council, the Director or Administrator shall serve as ViceChair of the Council. 
The Council shall meet quarterly or more frequently as the Council deems necessary. 
The Chair shall organize the time and location of meetings and facilitate the conduct
of the meetings. The Chair will develop an agenda for each meeting to which the ViceChair may contribute. 
By-laws for the operation of the Council shall be developed and approved by the 
membership. 
Policy changes due to federal or state law changes will be brought to the Council by 
either the Office of Child Support or by the State Court Administrative Office or 
submitted to the Chair or Vice-Chair from other sources. The Council shall develop a 
format for presentation and discussion of issues which shall include an opportunity for 
issues to be raised through information sharing during regular meetings or to be 
placed on the agenda through the Chair or the Vice-Chair. 
In developing recommendations or in drafting proposed legislation or rules, the 
members may seek comment where appropriate through a process determined by the 
members. 
If the Council cannot reach agreement on an issue requiring its recommendation, the 
alternative positions shall be documented in writing for decision by the Governor and 
Chief Justice. 
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-8
Establishment of Court Data Standards
In order to ensure effective administration of trial court information systems and 
facilitate the efficient exchange of trial court case information, it is ordered that the 
State Court Administrator establish court data standards. Chief judges shall take 
necessary action to ensure their courts' information systems comply with data 
standards established by the State Court Administrator.
The State Court Administrator shall provide reasonable time frames for compliance 
with court data standards. Not less than two years will be provided for compliance 
with data standards initially established pursuant to this order. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-9
Allocation of Funds from Lawyer Trust Account Program
On order of the Court, effective November 14, 1997, until further order of the Court, 
Administrative Order No. 1994-8, which modified Administrative Order No. 1990-2, is 
modified so as to provide that the funds to be distributed by the Board of Trustees of 
the Michigan State Bar Foundation shall be disbursed as follows: 
1.Seventy percent of the net proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to 
support the delivery of civil legal services to the poor; 
2.Fifteen percent of the net proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to 
support programs to promote improvements in the administration of justice; 
3.Ten percent of the proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to support 
implementation, within the judiciary, of the recommendations of the Task Force 
on Gender Issues in the Courts and the Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the 
Courts; and 
4.Five percent of the net proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to 
support the activities of the Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-10
Access to Judicial Branch Administrative Information
On order of the Court, the following order is effective February 1, 1998. The Court 
invites public comment on ways in which the objectives of the policy expressed in this 
order|an informed public and an accountable judicial branch|might be achieved most 
effectively and efficiently, consistent with the exercise of the constitutional 
responsibilities of the judicial branch. Comments should be sent to the Supreme Court 
Clerk by January 31, 1998.
(A) Scope, Coverage, and Definitions
(1)This order does not apply to the adjudicative function of the judicial branch. It 
neither broadens nor restricts the availability of information relating to a court's 
adjudicative records. 
(2)Solely as used in this order:
(a) "Adjudicative record" means any writing of any nature, and information in 
any form, that is filed with a court in connection with a matter to be 
adjudicated, and any writing prepared in the performance of an adjudicative 
function of the judicial branch. 
(b) "Administrative function" means the nonfinancial, managerial work that a 
court does, outside the context of any particular case. 
(c) "Administrative record" means a writing, other than a financial record or 
an employee record, prepared in the performance of an administrative 
function of the judicial branch. 
(d) "Employee record" means information concerning an employee of the 
Supreme Court, State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Judicial Institute, 
and Board of Law Examiners. 
(e) "Financial record" means the proposed budget, enacted budget, judicial 
salary information, and annual revenues and expenditures of a court. 
(f) "Judge" means a justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the Court of 
Appeals, circuit court, probate court, district court, or municipal court. 
(g) "Person" means any individual or entity, except an individual incarcerated 
in a local, state, or federal correctional facility of any kind. 
(h) "Supreme Court administrative agency" means the State Court 
Administrative Office, the Office of the Clerk, the Office of the Chief Justice, 
the Supreme Court Finance Department, and the Public Information Office. 
(B)Access to Information Regarding Supreme Court Administrative, Financial, and 
Employee Records. 
(1)Upon a written request that describes an administrative record, an employee 
record, or a financial record sufficiently to enable the Supreme Court 
administrative agency to find the record, a person has a right to examine, copy, 
or receive copies of the record, except as provided in this order. 
(2)Requests for an administrative or employee record of a Supreme Court 
administrative agency must be directed to the administrative agency or to the 
Public Information Office. Requests for a financial record must be directed to the 
Supreme Court Finance Department. An administrative record, employee record, 
or financial record must be available for examination during regular business 
hours. 
(3)A Supreme Court administrative agency may make reasonable rules to protect 
its records and to prevent unreasonable interference with its functions. 
(4)This order does not require the creation of a new administrative record, 
employee record, or financial record. 
(5)A reasonable fee may be charged for providing a copy of an administrative 
record, employee record, or financial record. The fee must be limited to the actual 
marginal cost of providing the copy, including materials and the time required to 
find the record and delete any exempt material. A person requesting voluminous 
records may be required to submit a deposit representing no more than half the 
estimated fee. 
(6)A copyrighted administrative record is a public record that may not be republished without proper authorization. 
(7)The following are exempt from disclosure:
(a)Personal information if public disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion 
of an individual's privacy. Such information includes, but is not limited to:
(i)The home address, home telephone number, social security account 
number, financial institution record, electronic transfer fund number,
deferred compensation, savings bonds, W-2 and W-4 forms, and any 
court-enforced judgment of a judge or employee. 
(ii)The benefit selection of a judge or employee. 
(iii)Detail in a telephone bill, including the telephone number and name of 
the person or entity called. 
(iv)Telephone logs and messages. 
(v)Unemployment compensation records and worker's disability 
compensation records. 
(b)Information that would endanger the safety or well-being of an individual. 
(c)Information that, if disclosed, would undermine the discharge of a 
constitutional or statutory responsibility. 
(d)Records or information exempted from disclosure by a statutory or 
common law privilege. 
(e)An administrative record or financial record that is to a substantial degree 
advisory in nature and preliminary to a final administrative decision, rather 
than to a substantial degree factual in nature. 
(f)Investigative records compiled by the State Court Administrative Office 
pursuant to MCR 8.113. 
(g)An administrative record or financial record relating to recommendations 
for appointments to court positions, court-sponsored committees, or 
evaluation of persons for appointment to court positions or court-sponsored 
committees. 
(h)Trade secrets, bids, or other commercial information if public disclosure 
would give or deny a commercial benefit to an individual or commercial entity. 
(i)Examination materials that would affect the integrity of a testing process. 
(j)Material exempt from disclosure under MCL 15.243; MSA 4.1801(13). 
(k)The identity of judges assigned to or participating in the preparation of a 
written decision or opinion. 
(l)Correspondence between individuals and judges. Such correspondence may 
be made accessible to the public by the sender or the recipient, unless the 
subject matter of the correspondence is otherwise protected from disclosure. 
(m)Reports filed pursuant to MCR 8.110(C)(5), and information compiled by 
the Supreme Court exclusively for purposes of evaluating judicial and court 
performance, pursuant to MCL 600.238; MSA 27A.238. Such information shall 
be made accessible to the public as directed by separate administrative order. 
(n)An administrative record, employee record, or financial record in draft 
form. 
(o)The work product of an attorney or law clerk employed by or representing 
the judicial branch in the regular course of business or representation of the 
judicial branch. 
(p)Correspondence with the Judicial Tenure Commission regarding any judge 
or judicial officer, or materials received from the Judicial Tenure Commission 
regarding any judge or judicial officer. 
(q)Correspondence with the Attorney Grievance Commission or Attorney 
Discipline Board regarding any attorney, judge, or judicial officer, or materials 
received from the Attorney Grievance Commission or Attorney Discipline 
Board regarding any attorney, judge, or judicial officer. 
(8)A request for a record may be denied if the custodian of the record determines
that
(a)compliance with the request would create an undue financial burden on 
court operations because of the amount of equipment, materials, staff time, 
or other resources required to satisfy the request. 
(b)compliance with the request would substantially interfere with the 
constitutionally or statutorily mandated functions of the court. 
(c)the request is made for the purpose of harassing or substantially interfering 
with the routine operations of the court. 
(d)the request is submitted within one month following the date of the denial 
of a substantially identical request by the same requester, denied under 
substantially identical rules and circumstances. 
(9)A person's request to examine, copy, or receive copies of an administrative 
record, employee record, or financial record must be granted, granted in part and 
denied in part, or denied, as promptly as practicable. A request must include 
sufficient information to reasonably identify what is being sought. The person 
requesting the information shall not be required to have detailed information 
about the court's filing system or procedures to submit a request. A Supreme 
Court administrative agency may require that a request be made in writing if the 
request is complex or involves a large number of records. Upon request, a partial 
or complete denial must be accompanied by a written explanation. A partial or 
complete denial is not subject to an appeal. 
(10)Employee records are not open to public access, except for the following 
information:
(a)The full name of the employee. 
(b)The date of employment. 
(c)The current and previous job titles and descriptions within the judicial 
branch, and effective dates of employment for previous employment within 
the judicial branch. 
(d)The name, location, and telephone number of the court or agency of the 
employee. 
(e)The name of the employee's current supervisor. 
(f) Any information authorized by the employee to be released to the public or 
to a named individual, unless otherwise prohibited by law. 
(g)The current salary of the employee. A request for salary information 
pursuant to this order must be in writing. The individual who provides the 
information must immediately notify the employee that a request for salary 
information has been made, and that the information has been provided. 
(11)The design and operation of all future automated record management 
systems must incorporate processing features and procedures that maximize the 
availability of administrative records or financial records maintained electronically. 
Automated systems development policies must require the identification and 
segregation of confidential data elements from database sections that are 
accessible to the public. Whenever feasible, any major enhancements or upgrades 
to existing systems are to include modifications that segregate confidential 
information from publicly accessed databases. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-11
Access to Judicial Branch Administrative Decision Making
On order of the Court, the following order is effective February 1, 1998. The Court 
invites public comment on ways in which the objectives of the policy expressed in this 
order|an informed public and an accountable judicial branch|might be achieved most 
effectively and efficiently, consistent with the exercise of the constitutional 
responsibilities of the judicial branch. Comments should be sent to the Supreme Court 
Clerk by January 31, 1998. 
(A) Scope, Coverage, and Definitions. 
This order neither broadens nor restricts the extent to which court proceedings are 
conducted in public. 
(B) Supreme Court Administrative Public Hearings.
(1)At least three times annually the Supreme Court will conduct an administrative 
public hearing on rules or administrative orders significantly affecting the delivery 
of justice proposed for adoption or amendment. An agenda of an administrative 
public hearing will be published not less than 28 days before the hearing in the 
manner most likely to come to the attention of interested persons. Public notice of 
any amendments to the agenda after publication will be made in the most 
effective manner practicable under the circumstances. Persons who notify the 
clerk of the Supreme Court in writing not less than 7 days before the hearing of 
their desire to address the Court at the hearing will be afforded the opportunity to 
do so. 
(2)Unless immediate action is required, the adoption or amendment of rules or 
administrative orders that will significantly affect the administration of justice will 
be preceded by an administrative public hearing under subsection (1). If no public 
hearing has been held before a rule is adopted or amended, the matter will be 
placed on the agenda of the next public hearing, at which time the Supreme Court 
will hear public comment regarding whether the rule should be retained or 
amended. 
(3)The adoption or amendment of a court rule or administrative order by the 
Supreme Court shall be by a recorded vote, and shall be available upon request 
from the Supreme Court Clerk. 
(C)State Court Administrative Office; Administrative Public Hearings.
(1)Task forces, commissions, and working groups created at the direction of the 
Supreme Court and convened to advise the State Court Administrative Office and 
the Michigan Supreme Court on matters significantly affecting the delivery of 
justice must provide an opportunity for public attendance at one or more 
meetings. 
(2)Notice of a meeting that is open to the public pursuant to this order must be 
provided in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of interested 
persons. 
(3)A meeting held pursuant to this section must be held at a reasonably 
convenient time and in a handicap accessible setting. 
(4)Persons interested in making a public comment at a meeting held pursuant to 
this section must be afforded the opportunity for public comment to the extent 
practicable. If the business of the meeting precludes the opportunity for public 
comment by any person wishing to comment, the person must be allowed to 
speak at a subsequent meeting or, if no future meeting will be held, be given the 
opportunity to have a written public comment recorded in the minutes and 
distributed to members of the task force, commission, or working group. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1997-12
Authorization of Demonstration Projects to Study Court Consolidation
Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2004-2.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1998-1
Reassignment of Circuit Court Actions to District Judges
In 1996 PA 374 the Legislature repealed former MCL 600.641; MSA 27A.641, which 
authorized the removal of actions from circuit court to district court on the ground 
that the amount of damages sustained may be less than the jurisdictional limitation 
as to the amount in controversy applicable to the district court. In accordance with 
that legislation, we repealed former MCR 4.003, the court rule implementing that 
procedure. It appearing that some courts have been improperly using transfers of 
actions under MCR 2.227 as a substitute for the former removal procedure, and that 
some procedure for utilizing district judges to try actions filed in circuit court would 
promote the efficient administration of justice, we adopt this administrative order, 
effective immediately, to apply to actions filed after January 1, 1997. 
A circuit court may not transfer an action to district court under MCR 2.227 based on 
the amount in controversy unless: (1) The parties stipulate to the transfer and to an 
appropriate amendment of the complaint, see MCR 2.111(B)(2); or (2) From the 
allegations of the complaint, it appears to a legal certainty that the amount in 
controversy is not greater than the applicable jurisdictional limit of the district court. 
Circuit courts and the district courts within their geographic jurisdictions are strongly 
urged to enter into agreements, to be implemented by joint local administrative 
orders, to provide that certain actions pending in circuit court will be reassigned to 
district judges for further proceedings. An action designated for such reassignment 
shall remain pending as a circuit court action, and the circuit court shall request the 
State Court Administrator assign the district judge to the circuit court for the purpose 
of conducting proceedings. Such administrative orders may specify the categories of 
cases that are appropriate or inappropriate for such reassignment, and shall include a 
procedure for resolution of disputes between circuit and district courts as to whether a 
case was properly reassigned to a district judge. 
Because this order was entered without having been considered at a public hearing 
under Administrative Order No. 1997-11, the question whether to retain or amend the 
order will be placed on the agenda for the next administrative public hearing, 
currently scheduled for September 24, 1998. 
[amended effective 11/7/2006]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1998-3
Family Division of the Circuit Court; Support Payments
The family division of the circuit court is responsible for the receipt and disbursement 
of child and spousal support payments. Those transactions require substantial public 
resources in order to ensure that the funds are properly receipted and disbursed on a 
timely basis for the benefit of those who receive the funds. Michigan circuit courts 
have an exemplary record for the rapid and efficient receipt and disbursement of 
support payments. 
The implementation of electronic funds transfer processes for receipt and 
disbursement of funds provides the opportunity for more timely processing of support 
payments, and the opportunity for reducing the cost of such transactions. 
Furthermore, it is apparent that the implementation of electronic funds transfers for 
support payments will facilitate the implementation of central distribution processes 
required by the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. 
Therefore, it is ordered that circuit courts, in receiving and disbursing support 
payments, shall use electronic funds transfer to the fullest extent possible. 
In implementing electronic funds transfers, circuit courts will follow guidelines 
established by the State Court Administrator for that purpose. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1998-4
Sentencing Guidelines
On order of the Court, Administrative Order No. 1998-2, 459 Mich, is vacated. 
The sentencing guidelines promulgated by the Supreme Court in Administrative Order 
No. 1988-4, 430 Mich ci (1988) are rescinded, effective January 1, 1999, for all cases 
in which the offense is committed on or after January 1, 1999. The sentencing 
guidelines promulgated in Administrative Order No. 1988-4, as governed by the 
appellate case law concerning those guidelines, remain in effect for applicable 
offenses committed before January 1, 1999. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1998-5
Chief Judge Responsibilities; Local Intergovernmental Relations
On order of the Court, the following order is effective immediately. This order replaces 
Administrative Order No. 1997- 6, which is rescinded. 

I. APPLICABILITY
This Administrative Order applies to all trial courts as defined in MCR 8.110(A). 

II. COURT BUDGETING
If the local funding unit requests that a proposed court budget be submitted in lineitem detail, the chief judge must comply with the request. If a court budget has been 
appropriated in line-item detail, without prior approval of the funding unit, a court 
may not transfer between line-item accounts to: (a) create new personnel positions 
or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits, except to implement across the 
board increases that were granted to employees of the funding unit after the adoption 
of the court's budget at the same rate, or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level 
of an existing category. A chief judge may not enter into a multiple-year commitment 
concerning any personnel economic issue unless: (1) the funding unit agrees, or (2) 
the agreement does not exceed the percentage increase or the duration of a multipleyear contract that the funding unit has negotiated for its employees. Courts must 
notify the funding unit or a local court management council of transfers between lines 
within 10 business days of the transfer. The requirements shall not be construed to 
restrict implementation of collective bargaining agreements. 
III. FUNDING DISPUTES; MEDIATION AND LEGAL ACTION
If, after the local funding unit has made its appropriations, a court concludes that the 
funds provided for its operations by its local funding unit are insufficient to enable the 
court to properly perform its duties and that legal action is necessary, the procedures 
set forth in this order must be followed. 
1.Legal action may be commenced 30 days after the court has notified the State 
Court Administrator that a dispute exists regarding court funding that the court 
and the local funding unit have been unable to resolve, unless mediation of the 
dispute is in progress, in which case legal action may not be commenced within 
60 days of the commencement of the mediation. The notice must be accompanied 
by a written communication indicating that the chief judge of the court has 
approved the commencement of legal proceedings. With the notice, the court 
must supply the State Court Administrator with all facts relevant to the funding 
dispute. The State Court Administrator may extend this period for an additional 
30 days. 
2.During the waiting period provided in paragraph 1, the State Court 
Administrator must attempt to aid the court and the involved local funding unit to 
resolve the dispute. 
3.If, after the procedure provided in paragraph 2 has been followed, the court 
concludes that a civil action to compel funding is necessary, the State Court 
Administrator must assign a disinterested judge to preside over the action. 
4.Chief judges or representatives of funding units may request the assistance of 
the State Court Administrative Office to mediate situations involving potential 
disputes at any time, before differences escalate to the level of a formal funding 
dispute. 
IV. LOCAL COURT MANAGEMENT COUNCIL OPTION
Where a local court management council has been created by a funding unit, the chief 
judge of a trial court for which the council operates as a local court management 
council, or the chief judge's designee, may serve as a member of the council. Unless 
the local court management council adopts the bylaws described below, without the 
agreement of the chief judge, the council serves solely in an advisory role with 
respect to decisions concerning trial court management otherwise reserved 
exclusively to the chief judge of the trial court pursuant to court order and 
administrative order of the Supreme Court. 
A chief judge, or the chief judge's designee, must serve as a member of a council 
whose nonjudicial members agree to the adoption of the following bylaws: 
1)Council membership includes the chief judge of each court for which the council 
operates as a local court management council. 
2)Funding unit membership does not exceed judicial membership by more than 
one vote. Funding unit membership is determined by the local funding unit; 
judicial membership is determined by the chief judge or chief judges. Judicial 
membership may not be an even number. 
3)Any action of the council requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the 
funding unit representatives on the council and a majority vote of the judicial 
representatives on the council. 
4)Once a council has been formed, dissolution of the council requires the majority 
vote of the funding unit representatives and the judicial representatives of the 
council. 
5)Meetings of the council must comply with the Open Meetings Act.MCL 15.261 et 
seq.; MSA 4.1800(11) et seq. Records of the council are subject to the Freedom 
of Information Act.MCL 15.231 et seq.; MSA 4.1801(1) et seq. 
If such bylaws have been adopted, a chief judge shall implement any personnel 
policies agreed upon by the council concerning compensation, fringe benefits, and 
pensions of court employees, and shall not take any action inconsistent with policies 
of the local court management council concerning those matters. Management 
policies concerning the following are to be established by the chief judge, but must be 
consistent with the written employment policies of the local funding unit except to the 
extent that conformity with those policies would impair the operation of the court: 
holidays, leave, work schedules, discipline, grievance process, probation, 
classification, personnel records, and employee compensation for closure of court 
business due to weather conditions. 
As a member of a local court management council that has adopted the bylaws 
described above, a chief judge or the chief judge's designee must not act in a manner 
that frustrates or impedes the collective bargaining process. If an impasse occurs in a 
local court management council concerning issues affecting the collective bargaining 
process, the chief judge or judges of the council must immediately notify the State 
Court Administrator, who will initiate action to aid the local court management council 
in resolving the impasse. 
It is expected that before and during the collective bargaining process, the local court 
management council will agree on bargaining strategy and a proposed dollar value for 
personnel costs. Should a local court management council fail to agree on strategy or 
be unable to develop an offer for presentation to employees for response, the chief 
judge must notify the State Court Administrator. The State Court Administrator must 
work to break the impasse and cause to be developed for presentation to employees 
a series of proposals on which negotiations must be held. 
V. PARTICIPATION BY FUNDING UNIT IN NEGOTIATING PROCESS
If a court does not have a local court management council, the chief judge, in 
establishing personnel policies concerning compensation, fringe benefits, pensions, 
holidays, or leave, must consult regularly with the local funding unit and must permit 
a representative of the local funding unit to attend and participate in negotiating 
sessions with court employees, if desired by the local funding unit. The chief judge 
shall inform the funding unit at least 72 hours in advance of any negotiating session. 
The chief judge may permit the funding unit to act on the chief judge's behalf as 
negotiating agent. 

VI. CONSISTENCY WITH FUNDING UNIT PERSONNEL POLICIES
To the extent possible, consistent with the effective operation of the court, the chief 
judge must adopt personnel policies consistent with the written employment policies 
of the local funding unit. Effective operation of the court to best serve the public in 
multicounty circuits and districts, and in third class district courts with multiple 
funding units may require a single, uniform personnel policy that does not wholly 
conform with specific personnel policies of any of the court's funding units. 
1. Unscheduled Court Closing Due to Weather Emergency.
If a chief judge opts to close a court and dismiss court employees because of a 
weather emergency, the dismissed court employees must use accumulated leave 
time or take unpaid leave if the funding unit has employees in the same facility 
who are not dismissed by the funding unit. If a collective bargaining agreement 
with court staff does not allow the use of accumulated leave time or unpaid leave 
in the event of court closure due to weather conditions, the chief judge shall not 
close the court unless the funding unit also dismisses its employees working at 
the same facility as the court. 
Within 90 days of the issuance of this order, a chief judge shall develop and 
submit to the State Court Administrative Office a local administrative order 
detailing the process for unscheduled court closing in the event of bad weather. In 
preparing the order, the chief judge shall consult with the court's funding unit. 
The policy must be consistent with any collective bargaining agreements in effect 
for employees working in the court.
2. Court Staff Hours.
The standard working hours of court staff, including when they begin and end 
work, shall be consistent with the standard working hours of the funding unit. Any 
deviation from the standard working hours of the funding unit must be reflected in 
a local administrative order, as required by the chief judge rule, and be submitted 
for review and comment to the funding unit before it is submitted to the scao for 
approval. 

VII. TRAINING PROGRAMS
The Supreme Court will direct the development and implementation of ongoing 
training seminars of judges and funding unit representatives on judicial/legislative 
relations, court budgeting, expenditures, collective bargaining, and employee 
management issues. 

VIII. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
For purposes of collective bargaining pursuant to 1947 PA 336, a chief judge or a 
designee of the chief judge shall bargain and sign contracts with employees of the 
court. Notwithstanding the primary role of the chief judge concerning court personnel 
pursuant to MCR 8.110, to the extent that such action is consistent with the effective 
and efficient operation of the court, a chief judge of a trial court may designate a 
representative of a local funding unit or a local court management council to act on 
the court's behalf for purposes of collective bargaining pursuant to 1947 PA 336 only, 
and, as a member of a local court management council, may vote in the affirmative to 
designate a local court management council to act on the court's behalf for purposes 
of collective bargaining only. 

IX. EFFECT ON EXISTING AGREEMENTS
This order shall not be construed to impair existing collective bargaining agreements. 
Nothing in this order shall be construed to amend or abrogate agreements between 
chief judges and local funding units in effect on the date of this order. Any existing 
collective bargaining agreements that expire within 90 days may be extended for up 
to 12 months. 
If the implementation of 1996 PA 374 pursuant to this order requires a transfer of 
court employees or a change of employers, all employees of the former court 
employer shall be transferred to, and appointed as employees of, the appropriate 
employer, subject to all rights and benefits they held with the former court employer. 
The employer shall assume and be bound by any existing collective bargaining 
agreement held by the former court employer and, except where the existing 
collective bargaining agreement may otherwise permit, shall retain the employees 
covered by that collective bargaining agreement. 
A transfer of court employees shall not adversely affect any existing rights and 
obligations contained in the existing collective bargaining agreement. An employee 
who is transferred shall not, by reason of the transfer, be placed in any worse position 
with respect to worker's compensation, pension, seniority, wages, sick leave, 
vacation, health and welfare insurance, or any other terms and conditions of 
employment that the employee enjoyed as an employee of the former court 
employer. The rights and benefits thus protected may be altered by a future collective 
bargaining agreement. 

X. REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE
The chief judge or a representative of the funding unit may request the assistance of 
the State Court Administrative Office to facilitate effective communication between 
the court and the funding unit. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1999-1
Assignment of Medical Support Enforcement Matters to the Third Circuit for 
Discovery Purposes
Administrative Order No. 1997-3 is rescinded. On order of the Court, it appears that 
the administration of justice would be served in matters pending in circuit courts 
relating to support of minor children; any sitting judge of the Third Circuit Court
assigned to the family division of the Third Circuit Court may act in proceedings 
involving the financial and medical support of minor children in jurisdictions other 
than the Third Circuit Court according to the following procedures: 
1.This order applies to all pending and future actions involving the enforcement of 
financial or medical support of minor children filed in jurisdictions other than the Third 
Circuit Court. 
2.In actions where the circuit court, office of the friend of the court, requires the 
discovery of information relating to the availability of health or medical care insurance 
coverage to the parents of children subject to orders of support pending in that court, 
the chief circuit judge may refer those actions by writing or through electronic means 
to the Third Circuit Court Friend of the Court Office for assistance in the discovery of 
such information. 
3.Upon acceptance of the referral under section 2 by the Chief Judge of the Third 
Circuit or his or her designee, a judge of the Family Division of the Third Circuit Court 
designated by the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court may issue appropriate orders 
in that action for the purpose of discovery of information related to the availability of 
medical or health care insurance to the parents of minor children who are the subjects 
of that action. The judge(s) so assigned may by subpoena or other lawful means 
require the production of information for that purpose through single orders which 
apply to all cases referred from all jurisdictions making referrals under section 2. 
4.The State Court Administrative Office shall be responsible to oversee the 
administration of this order and shall report to the Supreme Court as needed 
regarding administration of this order. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1999-2
Authorization of Additional Demonstration Project to Study Court 
Consolidation
[Rescinded effective September 1, 2005 by Administrative order 2005-1] 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1999-3
Discovery in Misdemeanor Cases
On order of the Court, in the case of People v Sheldon, 234 Mich App 68; 592 NW2d 
121 (1999) (COA Docket No. 204254), the Court of Appeals ruled that MCR 6.201, 
which provides for discovery in criminal felony cases, also applies to criminal 
misdemeanor cases. That ruling was premised on an erroneous interpretation of our 
Administrative Order No. 1994-10. By virtue of this Administrative Order, we wish to 
inform the bench and bar that MCR 6.201 applies only to criminal felony cases. 
Administrative Order No. 1994-10 does not enlarge the scope of applicability of MCR 
6.201. See MCR 6.001(A) and (B).

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1999-4
Establishment of Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards
In order to improve the administration of justice; to improve the service to the public, 
other agencies, and the judiciary; to improve the performance and efficiency of 
Michigan trial court operations; and to enhance the trial courts' ability to preserve an 
accurate record of the trial courts' proceedings, decisions, orders, and judgments 
pursuant to statute and court rule, it is ordered that the State Court Administrator 
establish Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards and that trial courts 
conform to those standards. The State Court Administrative Office shall enforce the 
standards and assist courts in adopting practices to conform to those standards.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2000-1
Establishment of Council of Chief Judges
[Rescinded effective February 23, 2006.]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2000-2
[Rescinded effective August 8,2000 by Administrative Order No. 2000-5]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2000-3
Video Proceedings(Circuit and District Courts)
On order of the Court, Administrative Orders 1990-1, 1991-2, 1992-1, and 1993-1 
are rescinded.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2000-4
[Rescinded by Administrative Order No. 2001-4]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2000-5
In re Microsoft Antitrust Litigation
On order of the Court, it appearing that a number of actions have been filed alleging 
violation of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MCL 445.771; MSA 28.70(1) Reporter 
by Microsoft Corporation, and that coordination of pretrial and trial proceedings in 
those cases will promote the economical and expeditious resolution of that litigation, 
pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, sect 4, we direct all state courts to follow the 
procedures set forth in this administrative order. 
1.This order applies to all pending and future Microsoft actions pending or to be filed 
in Michigan courts other than the Third Judicial Circuit, including any Microsoft cases 
remanded by a federal court to a Michigan court other than the Third Judicial Circuit. 
For purposes of this order, "Microsoft actions" include all cases in which it is alleged 
that a party has suffered harm due to violations of the mara by Microsoft Corporation. 
2.Any orders in place in Michigan courts staying proceedings in a Microsoft mara 
action as a result of Administrative Order No. 2000-2 may now be rescinded. 
Administrative Order No. 2000-2 is rescinded. 
3.Each court in which a Microsoft mara action is pending shall enter an order changing 
venue of the action to the Third Judicial Circuit within 14 days of the date of this 
order. Upon the filing of a new Microsoft mara action, the court shall enter an order 
changing venue to the Third Judicial Circuit within 14 days after the action is filed. 
The court shall send a copy of the order to the State Court Administrator. A party who 
objects to the transfer of an action under this paragraph may raise the objection by 
filing a motion in the Third Judicial Circuit. Such a motion must be filed within 14 days 
after the transfer of the action. Nothing in this order shall be construed as a finding 
that venue is proper in Wayne County. 
4.Until the transfer of an action under paragraph 3, the parties to the action shall 
include the words "Microsoft mara case" on the top right-hand corner of the first page 
of any papers subsequently filed in this action. 
5.The Third Judicial Circuit shall cooperate with the State Court Administrator in 
monitoring the proceedings in the actions. 
6.MCR 2.222 and MCR 2.223 do not apply to changes of venue pursuant to this order. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2001-1
Security Policies for Court Facilities
It appearing that the orderly administration of justice would be best served by prompt 
action, the following order is given immediate effect. The Court invites public 
comment regarding the merits of the order. Comments may be submitted in writing 
or electronically to the Supreme Court Clerk by June 1, 2001. P.O. Box 30052, 
Lansing, MI 48909, or MSC_clerk@jud.state.mi.us. When submitting a comment, 
please refer to File No. 01-15. 
This matter will be considered by the Court at a public hearing to be held June 14, 
2001, in Kalamazoo. Persons interested in addressing this issue at the hearing should 
notify the Clerk by June 12, 2001. Further information about the hearing will be 
posted on the Court's website, www.supremecourt.state.mi.us. When requesting time 
to speak at the hearing, please refer to File No. 01-15. 
The issue of courthouse safety is important not only to the judicial employees of this 
state, but also to all those who are summoned to Michigan courtrooms or who visit for 
professional or personal reasons. Accordingly, the Supreme Court today issues the 
following declaration regarding the presence of weapons in court facilities. 
It is ordered that weapons are not permitted in any courtroom, office, or other space 
used for official court business or by judicial employees unless the chief judge or 
other person designated by the chief judge has given prior approval consistent with 
the court's written policy. 
Each court is directed to submit a written policy conforming with this order to the 
State Court Administrator for approval, as soon as is practicable. In developing a 
policy, courts are encouraged to collaborate with other entities in shared facilities and, 
where appropriate, to work with local funding units. Such a policy may be part of a 
general security program or it may be a separate plan. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2001-2
Uniform Effective Dates For Court Rule Amendments
On the basis of a request from the Appellate Practice Section of the State Bar of 
Michigan, the Supreme Court published for comment a proposed amendment of Rule 
1.201 of the Michigan Court Rules. File No. 00-11. 463 Mich 1219 (No. 4, 2000). The 
matter also was on the agenda of the public hearing held March 29, 2001, in Lansing. 
The proposal provided that an amendment of the court rules would not take effect 
until at least two (Revised 9/01) months after its adoption, and that the effective date 
would be either April 1 or October 1, absent the need for immediate action. 
The Court understands the concerns expressed by those who submitted written 
comments and those who addressed this proposal at the public hearing. After careful 
consideration, however, the Court is persuaded that the best approach to more 
uniformity in the rulemaking process is not a court rule amendment, but rather an 
administrative order that provides for three effective dates during the year. 
Accordingly, on order of the Court, unless there is a need for immediate action, 
amendments of the Michigan Court Rules will take effect on January 1, May 1, or 
September 1. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2001-3
Security Policy for the Michigan Supreme Court
It is ordered that
1. No weapons are allowed in the courtroom of the Supreme Court or in other 
facilities used for official business of the Court. This prohibition does not apply to 
security personnel of the Court in the performance of their official duties, or to law 
enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties, if the officer is in 
uniform (or otherwise properly identified) and is not a party to a matter then 
before the Court. The Chief Justice may authorize additional exceptions under 
appropriate circumstances. 
2. All persons and objects are subject to screening by Court security personnel, 
for the purpose of keeping weapons from entering Court facilities. 
3. Notice shall be posted that "No weapons are permitted in this Court facility." 
4. Persons in violation of this order may be held in contempt of Court.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2001-4
Video Proceedings (Family Division of Circuit Court and Probate Court)
Rescinded effective May 1, 2007.  See Administrative Order 2007-1. 
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2001-6
Committee on Model Civil Jury Instructions
Forty years ago, in response to a resolution of the Michigan Judicial Conference, the 
Supreme Court appointed a committee to prepare jury instructions for use in civil 
cases. In 1970, the Court amended former Rule 516 of the General Court Rules to 
authorize the use of these instructions by trial courts. Later that year, the Court 
approved general instructions and instructions governing personal injury actions. In 
1975, at the request of the committee that had developed the instructions, the Court 
appointed a new Committee on Standard Jury Instructions to oversee the task of 
maintaining the accuracy of existing model instructions and developing new 
instructions. Five years later, the Court amended the court rules to give the 
committee express standing authority to propose and modify standard instructions. 
The Court has reconstituted the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions from time 
to time to provide for new members and to make permanent the status of the 
committee`s reporter. But the committee has until now operated without a defined 
structure and without a fixed number of members. 
The Court is appreciative of the faithful and distinguished service that has been 
rendered over the years by members of the current and predecessor committees. 
Many of the present members have given long and selfless service, and their 
contributions have greatly enhanced the administration of justice. As part of an effort 
to regularize all the working groups that the Court has established, and to ensure 
continuity, we are persuaded that it now would be beneficial to develop a formal 
structure and membership for this committee. In addition, we are renaming the 
committee to clarify that the instructions apply to civil cases and that they are model 
instructions. 
Therefore, on order of the Court, a new Committee on Model Civil Jury Instructions is 
established. The committee shall consist of 21 persons to be appointed by the 
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will designate one member to serve as the 
chairperson of the committee. Generally members will be appointed for three-year 
terms and may be reappointed for two additional terms. However, to facilitate the 
transition and the staggering of terms, some initial appointments will be for 
abbreviated terms and those appointees who are members of the current Committee 
on Standard Jury Instructions will not be eligible for reappointment. 
Effective January 1, 2002, the following persons are appointed to the new Committee 
on Model Civil Jury Instructions: 
For terms ending December 31, 2002:
Honorable Susan D. Borman
Peter L. Dunlap
R. Emmet Hannick
Honorable Harold Hood
Honorable Robert M. Ransom
George T. Sinas
Sheldon J. Stark
For terms ending December 31, 2003:
David C. Coey
Honorable Pat M. Donofrio
Honorable Bruce A. Newman
Honorable Wendy L. Potts
Michael B. Rizik, Jr.
Valerie P. Simmons
Susan H. Zitterman
For terms ending December 31, 2004:
Thomas Blaske
Honorable William J. Giovan
Mark R. Granzotto
Maurice G. Jenkins
Steven W. Martineau
Honorable Susan Bieke Neilson
Mary Massaron Ross
Judge Hood is designated as chairperson for the duration of his term, after which 
Judge Giovan shall assume that position. Sharon M. Brown is appointed reporter for 
the committee.
It shall be the duty of the committee to ensure that the Model Civil Jury Instructions 
accurately state applicable law, and that the instructions are concise, understandable, 
conversational, unslanted, and not argumentative. In this regard, the committee shall 
have the authority to amend or repeal existing instructions and, when necessary, to 
adopt new instructions. Before doing so, the committee shall provide a text of the 
proposal to the secretary of the State Bar and the state court administrator, who shall 
give the notice specified in Rule 1.201 of the Michigan Court Rules. The notice shall 
state the time and method for commenting on the proposal. Following the comment 
period and any public hearing that the committee may hold on the matter, the 
committee shall provide notice of its decision in the same manner in which it provided 
notice of proposed instructions. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2002-1
Child Support Leadership Council
On order of the Court, the following order is effective immediately. Recognizing the 
integral role played by the judicial branch in the operation of programs affecting 
Michigan's families, this Court joined the Governor in 1997 in establishing the Child 
Support Coordinating Council to set statewide goals for the efficient and prompt 
delivery of adequate child support to the children of Michigan. Administrative Order 
1997-7. In continuing cooperation with the Executive Branch, we now reconstitute 
that committee as the Child Support Leadership Council to resume a coordinated 
effort to provide Michigan families with optimal child support and related services. 
It is therefore ordered, concurrent with the Executive Order issued today by Governor 
John Engler, that the Child Support Leadership Council is established. The Council is 
advisory in nature and is charged with the following responsibilities:
1. Establish statewide goals and objectives for the child support program.
2. Review and recommend policy for the child support program.
3. Share information with appropriate groups regarding program issues.
4. Analyze and recommend state positions on pending and proposed changes in 
court rules and federal and state legislation. 
The Council shall consist of nine members. Four shall be appointed by the Governor, 
four shall be appointed by the Supreme Court, and one shall be appointed by the 
Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan. 
The term of appointment is two years, except that two of the Governor's first 
appointments and three of the Court's first appointments shall serve terms of one 
year. Reappointment is at the discretion of the respective appointing authority. 
Two members shall be appointed each January to serve as co-chairs of the Council, 
except that the first appointments shall occur coincident with this order. The Governor 
shall appoint one co-chair and the Court shall appoint the other co-chair.
The Council shall meet quarterly or more frequently as it deems necessary. The cochairs shall organize the time and location of each meeting, develop an agenda, and 
facilitate the conduct. 
Each year the Council shall submit to the Governor and the Court its 
recommendations for annual goals and strategies. Within sixty days, the Governor 
and the Court may approve or amend the recommendations. 
By January 31 of each year, the Council shall submit an annual report to the Governor 
and the Court for the previous year. 
By-laws for the operation of the Council shall be developed and approved by the 
members. 
Policy changes warranted by federal or state law shall be presented to the Council by 
the Office of Child Support (federal or state law) or the State Court Administrative 
Office (state law or court rule), or shall be submitted to one of the co-chairs by other 
sources. The Council shall develop a format for presenting and discussing issues, 
which shall include an opportunity for raising issues during a regular meeting or 
placing them on the agenda through one of the co-chairs before the meeting. 
In developing recommendations, members may seek comment as appropriate, 
including comment from various child support advocacy organizations, through a 
process determined by the members. 
If the Council cannot reach agreement on an issue requiring its recommendation, the 
alternative positions shall be documented in writing for decision by the Governor and 
the Court. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2002-2
Facsimile Transmission of Documents in the Court of Appeals
On order of the Court, the Court of Appeals is authorized, beginning September 1, 
2002, and until further order of the Supreme Court, to accept the facsimile 
transmission of documents in the following circumstances:
(1) The Court of Appeals shall accept the filing of the following documents by 
facsimile (fax) transmission:
(a) answers to motions filed under MCR 7.211(B)(2)(e);
(b) answers to pleadings that were accompanied by a motion for immediate 
consideration under MCR 7.211(C)(6).
(2) The Court of Appeals may expand or restrict the other types of filings accepted by 
fax upon notice published in its Internal Operating Procedures.
(3) Allowable fax filings will be received by the Court of Appeals at any time.
However, fax filings received on weekends, designated Court of Appeals holidays, or 
after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time will be considered filed on the next business day. The 
time of receipt will be the time the cover sheet is received by the Court of Appeals, 
except if less than the entire document is received through no fault of the Court of 
Appeals or its facsimile equipment. If less than the entire document is received 
through no fault of the Court of Appeals or its facsimile equipment, there is no filing.
(4) A cover sheet provided by the Court of Appeals must accompany every 
transmission. The following information must be included on the cover sheet:
(a) case name and Court of Appeals docket number (or applicable case names 
and docket numbers of cases consolidated by the Court of Appeals to which the 
faxed filing applies);
(b) county of case origin;
(c) title of document being filed;
(d) name, attorney P-number (if applicable), telephone number, and fax number 
of the attorney or party sending the fax;
(e) if fees have not already been paid, the credit card number, expiration date, 
and authorized signature of the cardholder;
(f) number of pages in the transmission, including the cover sheet.
(5) All fax filings must be on 8½" x 11" paper, in at least 12-point type. Every page 
must be numbered consecutively, and the background and print must contrast 
sufficiently to be easily readable.
(6) The fax filing shall be considered the document filed in the Court of Appeals. The 
attorney or party filing the document shall retain the original document, to be 
produced only at the request of the Court of Appeals. No further copies should be 
mailed to the Court of Appeals unless requested.
(7) Attachments to a filing must be labeled in the format of “Attachment X” on the 
lower right-hand corner of either a separate page or the first page of the attachment.
(8) All other requirements of the court rules apply to fax filings, including the 
signature, page limitations, filing fees, and service on other parties.
(9) A service fee shall be charged for the receipt of each fax transmission in the 
amount published in the Internal Operating Procedures. Fax filings in multiple Court of 
Appeals docket numbers must be transmitted separately under separate cover sheets 
unless the cases have already been consolidated by the Court of Appeals.
(10) Service fees and filing fees must be paid, or permission to charge the fees to an 
authorized credit card must be allowed by the filing party on the cover sheet, at the 
same time the fax filing is sent. A credit card transaction must be approved by the 
issuing financial institution before the document will be accepted as filed by the Court 
of Appeals.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2002-3
Family Violence Indicator (Family Division of Circuit Court and Probate 
Court)
On order of the Court, the need for immediate action having been found, the Court 
adopts the following requirements for friends of the court, to be effective upon 
implementation of an automated child support enforcement system within the Family 
Independence Agency, MCL 400.231 et seq., and the availability of necessary 
programming. The provisions of this order will be considered further by the Court at a 
public hearing. Notice of future public hearings will be provided by the Court and 
posted at the Court’s website, www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt.
The friends of the court shall adhere to the following rules in managing their files and 
records:
(1) When the Family Violence Indicator is set in the statewide automated child 
support enforcement system for an individual in an action, that individual’s 
address shall be considered confidential under MCR 3.218(A)(3)(f).
(2) Friend of the court offices shall cause a Family Violence Indicator to be set in 
the statewide automated child support enforcement system on all the files and 
records in an action involving an individual when:
(a) a personal protection order has been entered protecting that individual,
(b) the friend of the court becomes aware of an order of any Michigan court 
that provides for confidentiality of the individual’s address, or denies access to 
the individual’s address,
(c) an individual files a sworn statement with the office setting forth specific 
incidents or threats of domestic violence or child abuse, or
(d) the friend of the court becomes aware that a determination has been 
made in another state that a disclosure risk comparable to any of the above 
risk indicators exists for the individual.
(3) When the Family Violence Indicator has been set for an individual in any 
action, the Family Violence Indicator shall be set in all other actions within the 
statewide automated child support enforcement system concerning that same 
individual.
(4) When the Family Violence Indicator has been set for a custodial parent in any 
action, the Family Violence Indicator shall also be set for all minors for which the 
individual is a custodial parent. When the Family Violence Indicator has been set 
for any minor in an action, the Family Violence Indicator shall also be set for the 
minor’s custodian.
(5) The friend of the court office shall cause the Family Violence Indicator to be 
removed:
(a) by order of the circuit court,
(b) at the request of the protected party, when the protected party files a 
sworn statement with the office that the threats of violence or child abuse no 
longer exist, unless a protective order or other order of any Michigan court is 
in effect providing for confidentiality of an individual’s address, or
(c) at the request of a state that had previously determined that a disclosure 
risk comparable to the risks in paragraph two existed for the individual.
(6) When the Family Violence Indicator has been removed for an individual in any 
action, the Family Violence Indicator that was set automatically for other persons 
and cases associated with that individual shall also be removed.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2002-4
Cases Involving Children Absent From Court-Ordered Placement Without 
Legal Permission
In Michigan, the family division of the circuit court is entrusted with protecting the 
welfare of children who are under its jurisdiction. This includes thousands of victims of 
abuse or neglect who are placed by court order in a variety of environments, such as 
foster care, to ensure their safety. 
Recently, there have been reports of several hundred children in Michigan who are 
absent from court-ordered placements without permission from the court. In some 
situations, the child has run away. Other times, especially in the case of younger 
children, there has been an abduction, often by a family member. Regardless of the 
reason, there can be no justification for the unauthorized disappearance from court
ordered placement of even one child. 
The Legislature has given the Family Independence Agency the responsibility of 
supervising children who are under court jurisdiction because of abuse or neglect. Any 
effort to locate children who are absent from court-ordered placements thus must 
include both the agency and the courts. Accordingly, on order of the Court, each 
circuit court must develop a plan for reviewing cases involving children who are 
absent from court-ordered placements without permission from the court. Such plans 
must include the establishment of a special docket or other expedited process for 
review of such cases, either through the dispositional review hearings that are 
required by statute and court rule in all child-protective proceedings, or through 
formal status conferences or emergency status reviews. In addition, the plans should: 
A. identify the judge who has responsibility for ensuring compliance with the plan;
B. address the coordination of the efforts of the Family Independence Agency and 
the court to locate absent children; 
C. describe the process for reviewing such cases;
D. address any special problems that the court has identified;
E. describe the court's procedures for obtaining information regarding the 
whereabouts of absent children and for promptly scheduling hearings to 
determine their legal status; and
F. describe the court's procedures for giving priority to cases involving children 
ages 15 and younger, particularly if the child may have been abducted.
Each circuit court must submit a local administrative order to the State Court 
Administrative Office by February 1, 2003, describing its plan for reviewing cases 
involving children who are absent from court-ordered placements without permission 
from the court.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2002-5
Differentiated Case Scheduling At the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals is engaged in a delay-reduction initiative, with the goal of 
disposing of 95 percent of its cases within 18 months of filing beginning in October 
2003. To assist in reaching that goal, the Supreme Court orders that the Court of 
Appeals may give precedence on the session calendar under Rule 7.213(C) of the 
Michigan Court Rules to any appeals that the Court of Appeals determines are 
appropriate for differentiated case management. Specifically, the Court of Appeals 
may schedule such cases on the session calendar as soon as the time for filing the 
briefs has elapsed, the record has been received, and the matter has been prepared 
for submission in accordance with internal procedure. 
This order is effective immediately and will remain in effect until December 31, 2003, 
at which time the Court will decide whether to amend Rule 7.213(C) on a permanent 
basis, consistent with this administrative order. In the meantime, the Court will 
further consider this interim order at a public hearing. The schedule of future public 
hearings will be posted on the Court's website, www.courts.mi.gov/supremecourt. 
Please refer to Administrative File No. 2002-44 in any correspondence or inquiry. 
Cavanagh, J., states that he does not see the necessity for this order and agrees with 
Justice Kelly that at least a public hearing should precede its entry. 
Kelly, J., would hold a public hearing before issuing this administrative order. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2003-1
Concurrent Jurisdiction
Pursuant to MCL 600.401 et seq., as added by 2002 PA 678, courts may establish a 
plan of concurrent jurisdiction, subject to certain conditions and limitations, within a 
county or judicial circuit. Subject to approval by the Supreme Court, a plan of 
concurrent jurisdiction may be adopted by a majority vote of judges of the 
participating trial courts.
The plan shall provide for the assignment of cases to judges of the participating 
courts as necessary to implement the plan. Plans must address both judicial and 
administrative changes to court operations, including but not limited to the allocation 
of judicial resources, court governance, budget and fiscal management, personnel, 
record keeping, facilities, and information systems. 
If a plan of concurrent jurisdiction submitted to the Supreme Court includes an 
agreement as to the allocation of court revenue pursuant to MCL 600.408(4), it must 
be accompanied by a copy of approving resolutions from each of the affected local 
funding units.
A plan of concurrent jurisdiction may include a family court plan filed pursuant to MCL 
600.1011, as amended by 2002 PA 682, and Administrative Order No. 2003-2. 
In developing a plan, courts shall seek the input of all the affected judges, court staff, 
and other persons and entities that provide court services or are affected by the 
court's operations. The plan must be submitted to the local funding unit for a review 
of the plan's financial implications at least 30 days before it is submitted to the State 
Court Administrative Office. The funding unit may submit a letter to the chief judges 
that indicates agreement with the plan or that outlines any financial concerns that 
should be taken into consideration before the plan is adopted. The chief judges shall 
submit a copy of any such letter to the State Court Administrative Office when the 
concurrent jurisdiction plan is filed.
A plan of concurrent jurisdiction will not take effect until at least 90 days after it is 
approved by the Supreme Court. Each plan shall be submitted to the Supreme Court 
in the format specified by the State Court Administrative Office.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2003-2
Family Court Plans
Pursuant to MCL 600.1011, as amended by 2002 PA 682, the chief circuit and chief 
probate judges in each judicial circuit shall enter into an agreement by July 1, 2003, 
that establishes a plan known as the "family court plan." The plan shall describe how 
the family division of the circuit court will operate in that circuit and how to coordinate 
and promote that which the Legislature has described as "more efficient and effective 
services to families and individuals." 
In a probate court district that includes counties that are in different judicial circuits, 
the chief judge of each judicial circuit that includes such a probate court district and 
the chief probate judge shall enter into a family court plan for that circuit.
The chief circuit and chief probate judges shall file family court plans with the State 
Court Administrative Office no later than July 1, 2003. Chief circuit and chief probate 
judges shall seek the input of all the judges of the circuit and probate courts, staff of 
the circuit and probate courts, and other entities that provide services to families 
within that jurisdiction or that will be affected by the operation of the family division. 
The county clerk must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the development 
of plans for the management of court records. The county clerk may submit a letter to 
the chief judge of the circuit court indicating either concurrence or disagreement with 
the plan for the management of court records. The chief judge shall submit a copy of 
the letter to the State Court Administrative Office when the family court plan is filed. 
Disagreements regarding the plans for the management of court records may be 
resolved through mediation at the direction of the Supreme Court.
A family court plan submitted for a judicial circuit shall be approved by the State 
Court Administrative Office for filing or returned to the chief circuit and chief probate 
judges for amendment in accordance with 2002 PA 682 and guidelines provided by 
the State Court Administrative Office.
A family court plan shall specifically identify all circuit and probate judges serving 
pursuant to the plan. 
Any amendment to a family court plan must be filed with the State Court 
Administrative Office and accepted for filing before implementation of the amended 
provisions.
In any circuit court in which the chief circuit and chief probate judges are unable to 
agree upon a family court plan by July 1, 2003, the State Court Administrative Office 
will develop a family court plan for that circuit, subject to approval by the Supreme 
Court.
Administrative Order No. 1997-1 is rescinded.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2003-3
Appointment of Counsel for Indigent Criminal Defendants
In cases in which the defendant may lack the financial means to retain counsel and 
the Supreme Court is granting leave to appeal, an inquiry into the defendant's 
financial status may be necessary. Where the Court orders such an inquiry, it shall 
proceed in the manner outlined in this administrative order, effective immediately. 
The defendant must file, on a form developed by the State Court Administrative 
Office, an affidavit concerning present financial status. The affidavit must be filed in 
the circuit court from which the case is being appealed. The circuit court must provide 
the prosecuting attorney with a copy of the defendant's affidavit within 7 days. The 
prosecuting attorney may challenge the defendant's asserted lack of financial means 
to retain counsel by filing an appropriate motion with the circuit court within 14 days 
after the prosecuting attorney receives the copy of the affidavit. The circuit court may 
question the asserted lack of financial means on its own motion. If such a motion is 
filed by the prosecuting attorney or if the issue is raised by the circuit court sua 
sponte, the circuit court must conduct a hearing on the matter within 21 days after 
the motion is filed or the issue is raised. The prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and 
an attorney appointed by the circuit court to represent the defendant must appear at 
the hearing.
If such a motion is filed or if the issue is raised by the circuit court, the circuit court 
must determine whether the defendant lacks the financial means to retain counsel on 
the basis of (1) the defendant's present assets, employment, earning capacity, and 
living expenses; (2) the defendant's outstanding debts and liabilities, both secured 
and unsecured; (3)whether the defendant has qualified for, and is receiving, any form 
of public assistance; (4) the availability and convertibility, without undue financial 
hardship to the defendant or the defendant's family, of real or personal property 
owned by the defendant; (5) whether the defendant is incarcerated; and (6) any 
other circumstances that would affect the defendant's ability to pay the fee that 
ordinarily would be required to retain competent counsel. If the defendant's lack of 
financial means appears to be temporary, the circuit court may order that the 
defendant repay, on appropriate terms, the expense of appointed counsel. 
If, after such a challenge or question, the circuit court determines that the defendant 
lacks the financial means to retain counsel, the circuit court must appoint counsel or 
continue the appointment of previously appointed counsel within 14 days after the 
hearing. If there has not been such a challenge or question, the circuit court must 
appoint counsel or continue the appointment of previously appointed counsel within 
28 days after the defendant files an affidavit concerning present financial status. The 
circuit court must promptly forward to the Clerk of the Supreme Court a copy of the 
appointment order and must promptly provide counsel with any portion of the record 
that counsel requires.
If the defendant does not file an affidavit concerning present financial status or if the 
circuit court determines that the defendant does not lack the financial means to retain 
counsel, the circuit court must promptly notify the Clerk of this Court.
Administrative Order No. 1972-4, 387 Mich xxx (1972) is rescinded.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2003-4
Video Proceedings (Family Division of Circuit Court and Probate Court)
Rescinded effective May 1, 2007.  See Administrative Order 2007-1.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2003-5
Annual Dues Notice for the State Bar of Michigan
On order of the Court, the State Bar of Michigan shall include in the annual dues 
notice, beginning with the notice issued for fiscal year 2003-2004, a request for 
information regarding the following matters:
1. Other jurisdictions in which the member is or has been licensed to practice law, 
and whether the member has received any discipline in those jurisdictions.
2. The malpractice insurance covering the member.
3. Felony and misdemeanor convictions in any jurisdiction after the date the 
member received a license to practice law in any jurisdiction.
The member shall be required to provide the requested information and to verify that, 
to the best of the member's knowledge, the information is accurate.
On further order of the Court, the State Bar of Michigan also shall provide in the 
annual dues notice, beginning with the notice issued for fiscal year 2003-2004, an 
opportunity for members to make voluntary tax-deductible contributions of $5 or 
some other amount to benefit the Michigan Supreme Court Learning Center.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2003-6
Case Management at the Court of Appeals 
On March 11, 2003, the Supreme Court published for comment proposed 
amendments of several provisions of subchapter 7.200 of the Michigan Court Rules 
that the Court of Appeals stated would aid its effort to dispose of 95 percent of its 
cases within 18 months of filing, beginning in October 2003. The proposals generated 
If such a motion is filed or if the issue is raised by the circuit court, the circuit court 
must determine whether the defendant lacks the financial means to retain counsel on 
the basis of (1) the defendant's present assets, employment, earning capacity, and 
living expenses; (2) the defendant's outstanding debts and liabilities, both secured 
and unsecured; (3)whether the defendant has qualified for, and is receiving, any form 
of public assistance; (4) the availability and convertibility, without undue financial 
hardship to the defendant or the defendant's family, of real or personal property 
owned by the defendant; (5) whether the defendant is incarcerated; and (6) any 
other circumstances that would affect the defendant's ability to pay the fee that 
ordinarily would be required to retain competent counsel. If the defendant's lack of 
financial means appears to be temporary, the circuit court may order that the 
defendant repay, on appropriate terms, the expense of appointed counsel. 
If, after such a challenge or question, the circuit court determines that the defendant 
lacks the financial means to retain counsel, the circuit court must appoint counsel or 
continue the appointment of previously appointed counsel within 14 days after the 
hearing. If there has not been such a challenge or question, the circuit court must 
appoint counsel or continue the appointment of previously appointed counsel within 
28 days after the defendant files an affidavit concerning present financial status. The 
circuit court must promptly forward to the Clerk of the Supreme Court a copy of the 
appointment order and must promptly provide counsel with any portion of the record 
that counsel requires.
If the defendant does not file an affidavit concerning present financial status or if the 
circuit court determines that the defendant does not lack the financial means to retain 
counsel, the circuit court must promptly notify the Clerk of this Court.
Administrative Order No. 1972-4, 387 Mich xxx (1972) is rescinded.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2003-4
Video Proceedings (Family Division of Circuit Court and Probate Court)
Rescinded effective May 1, 2007.  See Administrative Order 2007-1.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2003-5
Annual Dues Notice for the State Bar of Michigan
On order of the Court, the State Bar of Michigan shall include in the annual dues 
notice, beginning with the notice issued for fiscal year 2003-2004, a request for 
information regarding the following matters:
1. Other jurisdictions in which the member is or has been licensed to practice law, 
and whether the member has received any discipline in those jurisdictions.
2. The malpractice insurance covering the member.
3. Felony and misdemeanor convictions in any jurisdiction after the date the 
member received a license to practice law in any jurisdiction.
The member shall be required to provide the requested information and to verify that, 
to the best of the member's knowledge, the information is accurate.
On further order of the Court, the State Bar of Michigan also shall provide in the 
annual dues notice, beginning with the notice issued for fiscal year 2003-2004, an 
opportunity for members to make voluntary tax-deductible contributions of $5 or 
some other amount to benefit the Michigan Supreme Court Learning Center.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2003-6
Case Management at the Court of Appeals 
On March 11, 2003, the Supreme Court published for comment proposed 
amendments of several provisions of subchapter 7.200 of the Michigan Court Rules 
that the Court of Appeals stated would aid its effort to dispose of 95 percent of its 
cases within 18 months of filing, beginning in October 2003. The proposals generated 
considerable comment both in writing and at the public hearing held on September 
25, 2003.
Those who have participated in the significant debate concerning the processing of 
cases in the Court of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals itself and the State Bar 
of Michigan, have proceeded with integrity and ultimate concern for the efficient and 
effective delivery of justice to the citizens of Michigan. We commend this cooperative 
approach and trust that such commitment will mark a continuing effort to improve our 
appellate system, even in this time of budgetary crisis.
Accordingly, on order of the Court, and building on the delay-reduction measures 
already implemented by the Court of Appeals, we direct the Court of Appeals to 
develop a plan for the management of civil cases that includes "just in time" briefing. 
In developing a plan that is in the best interests of the administration of justice and
the participants in the appellate process, we encourage the Court of Appeals to 
continue to work with the State Bar of Michigan and other interested groups and 
individuals. The plan shall be submitted to this Court by February 1, 2004.
The amended proposal submitted by the Court of Appeals on August 29, 2003, 
remains under consideration and can be viewed in the list of proposed rule 
amendments at 
www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Resources/Administrative/index.htm. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2003-7
Caseflow Management Guidelines
The management of the flow of cases in the trial court is the responsibility of the 
judiciary. In carrying out that responsibility, the judiciary must balance the rights and 
interests of individual litigants, the limited resources of the judicial branch and other 
participants in the justice system, and the interests of the citizens of this state in 
having an effective, fair, and efficient system of justice.
Accordingly, on order of the Court,
A. The State Court Administrator is directed, within available resources, to:
1. assist trial courts in implementing caseflow management plans that 
incorporate case processing time guidelines established pursuant to this 
order;
2. gather information from trial courts on compliance with caseflow 
management guidelines; and
3. assess the effectiveness of caseflow management plans in achieving the 
guidelines established by this order.
B. Trial courts are directed to:
1. maintain current caseflow management plans consistent with case 
processing time guidelines established in this order, and in cooperation with 
the State Court Administrative Office;
2. report to the State Court Administrative Office caseflow management 
statistics and other caseflow management data required by that office; and
3. cooperate with the State Court Administrative Office in assessing caseflow 
management plans implemented pursuant to this order.
On further order of the Court, the following time guidelines for case processing are 
provided as goals for the administration of court caseloads. These are only guidelines 
and are not intended to supersede procedural requirements in court rules or statutes 
for specific cases, or to supersede reporting requirements in court rules or statutes. 
Note: The phrase "adjudicated" refers to the date a case is reported in Part 2 of the 
caseload report forms and instructions. Aging of a case is suspended for the time a 
case is inactive as defined in Parts 2 and 4 of the caseload report forms and 
instructions. Refer to these specific definitions for details. 
Probate Court Guidelines.
1. Estate, Trust, Guardianship, and Conservatorship Proceedings.75% of all 
contested matters should be adjudicated within 182 days from the date of the 
filing of objection; 90% within 273 days; and 100% within 364 days except for
individual cases in which the court determines exceptional circumstances exist 
and for which a continuing review should occur. 
2. Mental Illness Proceedings; Judicial Admission Proceedings. 90% of all petitions 
should be adjudicated within 14 days from the date of filing and 100% within 28 
days. 
3. Civil Proceedings. 75% of all cases should be adjudicated within 364 days from 
the date of case filing; 95% within 546 days; and 100% within 728 days except 
for individual cases in which the court determines exceptional circumstances exist 
and for which a continuing review should occur. 
4. Miscellaneous Proceedings. 100% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 
35 days from the date of filing. 
District Court Guidelines
1. Civil Proceedings.
a. General Civil. 90% of all general civil and miscellaneous civil cases should 
be adjudicated within 273 days from the date of case filing; 98% within 364 
days; and 100% within 455 days except for individual cases in which the court 
determines exceptional circumstances exist and for which a continuing review 
should occur.
b. Summary Civil. 100% of all small claims, landlord/tenant, and land contract 
actions should be adjudicated within 126 days from the date of case filing 
except, in those cases where a jury is demanded, actions should be 
adjudicated within 154 days from the date of case filing. 
2. Felony, Misdemeanor, and Extradition Detainer Proceedings.
a. Misdemeanor. 90% of all statute and ordinance misdemeanor cases, 
including misdemeanor drunk driving and misdemeanor traffic, should be 
adjudicated within 63 days from the date of first appearance; 98% within 91 
days; and 100% within 126 days.
b. Felony and Extradition/Detainer. 100% of all preliminary examinations in 
felony, felony drunk driving, felony traffic, and extradition/detainer cases 
should be commenced within 14 days of arraignment unless good cause is 
shown.
3. Civil Infraction Proceedings. 90% of all civil infraction cases, including traffic, 
nontraffic, and parking cases, should be adjudicated within 35 days from the date 
of filing; 98% within 56 days; and 100% within 84 days. 
Circuit Court Guidelines
1. Civil Proceedings.75% of all cases should be adjudicated within 364 days from 
the date of case filing; 95% within 546 days; and 100% within 728 days except 
for individual cases in which the court determines exceptional circumstances exist 
and for which a continuing review should occur. 
2. Domestic Relations Proceedings.
a. Divorce Without Children. 90% of all divorce cases without children should 
be adjudicated within 91 days from the date of case filing; 98% within 273 
days; and 100% within 364 days.
b. Divorce With Children. 90% of all divorce cases with children should be 
adjudicated within 245 days from the date of case filing; 98% within 301 
days; and 100% within 364 days.
c. Paternity. 90% of all paternity cases should be adjudicated within 147 days 
from the date of case filing and 100% within 238 days.
d. Responding Interstate for Registration. 100% of all incoming interstate 
actions should be filed within 24 hours of receipt of order from initiating state.
e. Responding Interstate Establishment. 90% of all incoming interstate 
actions to establish support should be adjudicated within 147 days from the 
date of case filing and 100% within 238 days.
f. Child Custody Issues, Other Support, and Other Domestic Relations Matters. 
90% of all child custody, other support, and other domestic relations issues 
not listed above should be adjudicated within 147 days from the date of case 
filing and 100% within 238 days.
3. Delinquency Proceedings. Where a minor is being detained or is held in court 
custody, 90% of all original petitions or complaints should have adjudication and 
disposition completed within 84 days from the authorization of the petition and 
100% within 98 days. Where a minor is not being detained or held in court 
custody, 75% of all original petitions or complaints should have adjudication and 
disposition completed within 119 days from the authorization of the petition; 90% 
within 182 days; and 100% within 210 days. 
4. Child Protective Proceedings. Where a child is in out-of-home placement (foster 
care), 90% of all original petitions should have adjudication and disposition 
completed within 84 days from the authorization of the petition and 100% within 
98 days. Where a child is not in out-of-home placement (foster care), 75% of all 
original petitions should have adjudication and disposition within 119 days from 
the authorization of the petition; 90% within 182 days; and 100% within 210 
days. 
5. Designated Proceedings. 90% of all original petitions should be adjudicated 
within 154 days from the designation date and 100% within 301 days. Minors 
held in custody should be afforded priority for trial. 
6. Juvenile Traffic and Ordinance Proceedings. 90% of all citations should have 
adjudication and disposition completed within 63 days from the date of first 
appearance; 98% within 91 days; and 100% within 126 days. 
7. Adoption Proceedings. 
a. Petitions for Adoption. 90% of all petitions for adoption should be finalized 
or otherwise concluded within 287 days from the date of filing and 100% 
within 364 days. 
b. Petitions to Rescind Adoption. 100% of all petitions to rescind adoption 
should be adjudicated within 91 days from the date of filing. 
8. Miscellaneous Family Proceedings.
a. Name Change. 100% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 91 days 
from the date of filing.
b. Safe Delivery. 100% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 273 days 
from the date of filing.
c. Personal Protection. 100% of all petitions filed ex parte should be 
adjudicated within 24 hours of filing. 90% of all petitions not filed ex parte 
should be adjudicated within 14 days from the date of filing and 100% within 
21 days.
d. Emancipation of Minors. 100% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 
91 days from the date of filing.
e. Infectious Diseases. 100% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 91 
days from the date of filing.
f. Parental Waiver. 100% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 5 days 
from the date of filing.
9. Ancillary Proceedings.
a. Guardianship and Conservatorship Proceedings. 75% of all contested 
matters should be adjudicated within 182 days from the date of filing; 90% 
within 273 days; and 100% within 364 days.
b. Mental Illness Proceedings; Judicial Admission. 90% of all petitions should 
be adjudicated within 14 days from the date of filing and 100% within 28 
days.
10. Criminal Proceedings. 90% of all felony cases should be adjudicated within 91 
days from the date of entry of the order binding the defendant over to the circuit 
court; 98% within 154 days; and 100% within 301 days. Incarcerated persons 
should be afforded priority for trial. 
11. Appellate, Administrative Review, and Extraordinary Writ Proceedings.
a. Appeals from Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. 100% of all appeals to circuit 
court from courts of limited jurisdiction should be adjudicated within 182 days 
from the filing of the claim of appeal.
b. Appeals from Administrative Agencies. 100% of all appeals to the circuit 
court from administrative agencies should be adjudicated within 182 days 
from the filing of the claim of appeal.
c. Extraordinary Writs. 98% of all extraordinary writ requests should be 
adjudicated within 35 days from the date of filing and 100% within 91 days.
12. Matters Submitted to the Judge. Matters under submission to a judge or 
judicial officer should be promptly determined. Short deadlines should be set for 
presentation of briefs and affidavits and for production of transcripts. Decisions,
when possible, should be made from the bench or within a few days of 
submission; otherwise a decision should be rendered no later than 35 days after 
submission. 
Administrative Order No. 1991-4 is rescinded.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2004-1
State Bar of Michigan Activities
I. Ideological Activities Generally.
The State Bar of Michigan shall not, except as provided in this order, use the dues of 
its members to fund activities of an ideological nature that are not reasonably related 
to:
(A) the regulation and discipline of attorneys;
(B) the improvement of the functioning of the courts;
(C) the availability of legal services to society;
(D) the regulation of attorney trust accounts; and
(E) the regulation of the legal profession, including the education, the ethics, the 
competency, and the integrity of the profession.
The State Bar of Michigan shall permanently post on its website, and annually publish 
in the Michigan Bar Journal, a notice advising members of these limitations on the use 
of dues and the State Bar budget.
II. Activities Intended to Influence Legislation.
(A) The State Bar of Michigan may use the mandatory dues of all members to 
review and analyze pending legislation.
(B) The State Bar of Michigan may use the mandatory dues of all members to 
provide content-neutral technical assistance to legislators, provided that:
(1) a legislator requests the assistance;
(2) the executive director, in consultation with the president of the State Bar 
of Michigan, approves the request in a letter to the legislator stating that 
providing technical assistance does not imply either support for or opposition 
to the legislation; and
(3) the executive director of the State Bar of Michigan annually prepares and 
publishes in the Michigan Bar Journal a report summarizing all technical 
assistance provided during the preceding year.
(C) No other activities intended to influence legislation may be funded with 
members' mandatory dues, unless the legislation in question is limited to matters 
within the scope of the ideological-activities requirements in Section I.
(D) Neither the State Bar of Michigan nor any person acting as its representative 
shall take any action to support or oppose legislation unless the position has been 
approved by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Commissioners or Representative 
Assembly taken after all members were advised, by notice posted on the State 
Bar website at least 2 weeks prior to the Board or Assembly meeting, that the 
proposed legislation might be discussed at the meeting. The posted notice shall 
include a brief summary of the legislation, a link to the text and status of the 
pending legislation on the Michigan Legislature website, and a statement that 
members may express their opinion to the State Bar of Michigan at the meeting, 
electronically, or by written or telephonic communication. The webpage on which 
the notice is posted shall provide an opportunity for members to respond 
electronically, and the comments of members who wish to have their comments 
made public shall be accessible on the same webpage.
(E) The results of all Board and Assembly votes on proposals to support or oppose 
legislation shall be posted on the State Bar website as soon as possible after the 
vote, and published in the next Michigan Bar Journal. When either body adopts a 
position on proposed legislation by a less-than-unanimous vote, a roll call vote 
shall be taken, and each commissioner's or assembly-person's vote shall be 
included in the published notice.
(F) Those sections of the State Bar of Michigan that are funded by the voluntary 
dues of their members are not subject to this order, and may engage in 
ideological activities on their own behalf. Whenever a section engages in 
ideological activities, it must include on the first page of each submission, before 
the text begins and in print larger than the statement's text, a disclosure 
indicating
(1) that the section is not the State Bar of Michigan but rather a section 
whose membership is voluntary,
(2) that the position expressed is that of the section only, and that the State 
Bar has no position on the matter, or, if the State Bar has a position on the 
matter, what that position is,
(3) the total membership of the section,
(4) the process used by the section to take an ideological position,
(5) the number of members in the decision- making body, and
(6) the number who voted in favor and opposed to the position.
If an ideological communication is made orally, the same information must be 
effectively communicated to the audience receiving the communication.
Although the bylaws of the State Bar of Michigan may not generally prohibit 
sections from engaging in ideological activity, for a violation of this Administrative 
Order or the State Bar of Michigan's bylaws, the State Bar of Michigan may 
revoke the authority of a section to engage in ideological activities, or to use 
State Bar facilities or personnel in any fashion, by a majority vote of the Board of 
Commissioners. If the Board determines a violation occurred, the section shall, at 
a minimum, withdraw its submission and communicate the withdrawal in the 
same manner as the original communication occurred to the extent possible. The 
communication shall be at the section's own cost and shall acknowledge that the 
position was unauthorized.
III. Challenges Regarding State Bar Activities.
(A) A member who claims that the State Bar of Michigan is funding ideological 
activity in violation of this order may file a challenge by giving written notice, by 
e-mail or regular mail, to the executive director.
(1) A challenge involving legislative advocacy must be filed with the State Bar 
by e-mail or regular mail within 60 days of the posting of notice of adoption of 
the challenged position on the State Bar of Michigan website; a challenge sent 
by regular mail must be postmarked on or before the last day of the month 
following the month in which notice of adoption of that legislative position is 
published in the Michigan Bar Journal pursuant to section II(E).
(2) A challenge involving ideological activity appearing in the annual budget of 
the State Bar of Michigan must be postmarked or e-mailed on or before 
October 20 following the publication of the budget funding the challenged 
activity.
(3) A challenge involving any other ideological activity must be postmarked or 
e-mailed on or before the last day of the month following the month in which 
disclosure of that ideological activity is published in the Michigan Bar Journal.
Failure to challenge within the time allotted shall constitute a waiver.
(B) After a written challenge has been received, the executive director shall place 
the item on the agenda of the next meeting of the Board of Commissioners, and 
shall make a report and recommendation to the Board concerning disposition of 
the challenge. In considering the challenge, the Board shall direct the executive 
director to take one or more of the following actions:
(1) dismiss the challenge, with explanation;
(2) discontinue the challenged activity;
(3) revoke the challenged position, and publicize the revocation in the same 
manner and to the same extent as the position was communicated;
(4)arrange for reimbursement to the challenger of a pro rata share of the cost 
of the challenged activity; and
(5) arrange for reimbursement of all members requesting a pro rata share of 
the cost of the challenged activity in the next dues billing.
(C) A challenger or the State Bar of Michigan may seek review by this Court as to 
whether the challenged activity violates the limitations on State Bar ideological 
activities set forth in this order, and as to the appropriate remedy for a violation.
(D) A summary of the challenges filed under this section during a legislative term 
and their disposition shall be posted on the State Bar's website.
IV. Other State Bar Activities.
The State Bar of Michigan shall: 
(A) annually publish in the Michigan Bar Journal a notice informing members that, 
upon request, their names will be removed from the mailing list that is used for 
commercial mailings, and
(B) annually publish in the Michigan Bar Journal a notice informing members of 
the Young Lawyers Section that, upon request, their membership in that section 
will be terminated.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2004-2
Approval of the Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plans for Barry, Berrien, 
Isabella, Lake, and Washtenaw Counties, and for the 46th Circuit Consisting 
of Crawford, Kalkaska, and Otsego Counties 
Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. authorize Michigan trial 
courts to adopt concurrent jurisdiction plans within a county or judicial circuit, subject 
to approval of the Court. 
The Court hereby approves adoption of concurrent jurisdiction plans for the following 
trial courts effective August 1, 2004:
BARRY COUNTY
5th Circuit Court
56B District Court
Barry County Probate Court
BERRIEN COUNTY
2nd Circuit Court
5th District Court
Berrien County Probate Court
ISABELLA COUNTY
21st Circuit Court
76th District Court
Isabella County Probate Court
LAKE COUNTY
51st Circuit Court
79th District Court
Lake County Probate Court
WASHTENAW COUNTY
22nd Circuit Court
14A, 14B, & 15th District Courts
Washtenaw County Probate Court
CRAWFORD, KALKASKA, AND OTSEGO COUNTIES
46th Circuit Court
87th District Court
Crawford County Probate Court
Kalkaska County Probate Court
Otsego County Probate Court
The plans shall remain on file with the state court administrator.
Amendments to concurrent jurisdiction plans may be implemented by local 
administrative order pursuant to MCR 8.112. Plan amendments shall conform to the 
requirements of Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq.
The Court also rescinds Administrative Order Nos. 1993-3, 1996-1, 1996-2, 1996-5, 
1996-6, 1996-7, 1996-9, and 1997-12, effective August 1, 2004.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2004-3
Video Proceedings (Family Division of Circuit Court and Probate Court)
Rescinded effective May 1, 2007.  See Administrative Order 2007-1.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2004-4
Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plans for Genesee and Van Buren 
Counties, and the 23rd Circuit Consisting of Alcona, Arenac, Iosco and 
Oscoda Counties 
Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. authorize Michigan trial 
courts to adopt concurrent jurisdiction plans within a county or judicial circuit, subject 
to approval of the Court.
The Court hereby approves adoption of concurrent jurisdiction plans for the following 
trial courts effective October 1, 2004:
GENESEE COUNTY
7th Circuit Court
Genesee County Probate Court
67th District Court
68th District Court
VAN BUREN COUNTY
36th Circuit Court
Van Buren County Probate Court
7th District Court
ALCONA, ARENAC, IOSCO AND OSCODA COUNTIES
23rd Circuit Court
Alcona County Probate Court
Arenac County Probate Court
Iosco County Probate Court
Oscoda County Probate Court
81st District Court
The plans shall remain on file with the State Court Administrator.
Amendments to concurrent jurisdiction plans may be implemented by local 
administrative order pursuant to MCR 8.112. Plan amendments shall conform to the 
requirements of Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2004-5 (Original)
Expedited Summary Disposition Docket in the Court of Appeals
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed expedited docket and an opportunity for 
comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration 
having been given to the comments received, the following proposal is adopted for a 
two-year period, effective January 1, 2005.
1. Applicability. This administrative order applies to appeals filed on or after January 
1, 2005, arising solely from orders granting or denying motions for summary 
disposition under MCR 2.116. These appeals are to be placed on an expedited appeal 
track under which they shall generally be briefed, argued, and disposed of within six 
months of filing. A motion to remove is required to divert such appeals to the 
standard appeal track.
2. Time Requirements. Appeals by right or by leave in cases covered by this order 
must be taken within the time stated in MCR 7.204 or MCR 7.205. Claims of crossappeal must be filed within 14 days after the claim of appeal is filed with the Court of 
Appeals or served on the cross-appellant, whichever is later, or within 14 days after 
the clerk certifies the order granting leave to appeal.
3. Trial Court Orders on Motions for Summary Disposition. If the trial court concludes 
that summary disposition is warranted under MCR 2.116(C), the court shall render 
judgment without delay in an order that specifies the subsection of MCR 2.116(C) 
under which the judgment is entered.
4. Claim of Appeal - Form of Filing. With the following exceptions, a claim of appeal 
filed under this order shall conform in all respects with the requirements of MCR 
7.204
(A) A docketing statement will not be required as long as the case proceeds on 
the summary disposition track.
(B) When the claim of appeal is filed, it shall be accompanied by:
(1) evidence that the transcript of the hearing(s) on the motion for summary 
disposition has been ordered, or
(2) a statement that there is no record to transcribe, or
(3) a statement that the transcript has been waived.
Failure to file one of the above three documents with the claim of appeal will
not toll subsequent filing deadlines for transcripts or briefs. Sustained failure 
to provide the required documentation may result in dismissal of the appeal 
under MCR 7.201(B)(3), as long as the Court of Appeals provides a minimum 
7-day warning. 
5. Application for Leave - Form of Filing. An application for leave to appeal filed under 
this administrative order shall conform in all pertinent respects with the requirements 
of MCR 7.205.
6. Claim of Cross-Appeal. A claim of cross-appeal filed under this administrative order 
shall conform in all pertinent respects with the requirements of MCR 7.207.
7. Removal from Summary Disposition Track. A party may file a motion to remove the 
case from the summary disposition track to the standard track.
(A) Time to File. Motions to remove by the appellant or the cross-appellant must 
be filed with the claim of appeal or claim of cross-appeal, respectively, or within 7 
days after the date of certification of an order granting application for leave to 
appeal. Motions to remove by the appellee or cross-appellee must be filed no later 
than the time for filing of the appellee's brief.
(B) Form. Motions to remove shall concisely state the basis for removal, and must 
be in the form prescribed by the Court of Appeals. This form shall include a 
statement advising whether the appellee is expected to oppose the motion.
(C) Answer. An answer to a motion to remove must be filed within 7 days after 
service of the motion. The answer should state whether the appellee is expected 
to file a claim of cross-appeal.
(D) Disposition. Within 14 days after the filing of the motion to remove, the Court 
of Appeals shall issue an order disposing of the motion and setting the time for
further filings in the case. The time for further filings in the case will commence 
on the date of certification of the order on the motion.
(E) Docketing Statement. If the case is removed from the summary disposition 
track, a docketing statement must be filed within 14 days after the date of 
certification of the order on the motion.
(F) The Court of Appeals may remove a case from the summary disposition track 
at any time, on its own motion, if it appears to the Court that the case is not an 
appropriate candidate for processing under this administrative order.
(G) Effect of Removal. If the Court of Appeals removes a case from the summary 
disposition track, the parties are entitled to file briefs in accordance with the time 
and page limitations set forth in MCR 7.212. The time for filing the briefs 
commences from the date of certification of the order removing the case from the 
summary disposition docket.
8. Transcript - Production for Purposes of Appeal.
(A) Appellant.
(1) The appellant may waive the transcript. See section 4(B)(3) above.
(2) If the appellant desires the transcript for the appeal, the appellant must 
order the transcript before or contemporaneously with the filing of the claim 
of appeal.
(3) If the transcript is not timely filed, the appellant must file one of the 
following motions with the Court of Appeals within 7 days after the transcript 
is due:
(a) a motion for an order for the court reporter or recorder to show cause, 
or 
(b) a motion to extend time to file the transcript. 
(4) The time for filing the appellant's brief will be tolled by the timely filing of 
one of the above motions. The order disposing of such motion shall state the 
time for filing the appellant's brief.
(5) If the ordered transcript is not timely filed, and if the appellant fails to file 
either of the above motions within the time prescribed, the time for filing the 
brief will commence on the date the transcript was due. In such event, the 
appellant's brief shall be filed within 56 days after the claim of appeal was 
filed or 28 days after certification of the order granting leave to appeal.
(B) Appellee.
(1) The appellee may order the transcript within 14 days after service of the 
claim of appeal and notice that the appellant has waived the transcript.
(2) The appellee's transcript order will not affect the time for filing the 
appellant's brief.
(3) If the transcript is not timely filed, the appellee must file one of the 
following motions with the Court of Appeals within 7 days after the transcript 
is due:
(a) a motion for an order for the court reporter or recorder to show cause, 
or 
(b) a motion to extend the time to file the transcript. 
(4) The time for filing the appellee's brief will be tolled by the timely filing of 
one of the above motions. The order disposing of such motion shall state the 
time for filing the appellee's brief.
(5) If the ordered transcript is not timely filed, and if the appellee fails to file 
either of the above motions within the time prescribed, the time for filing the 
brief will commence on the date the transcript was due.
(C) Court Reporter. The court reporter or recorder shall file the transcript with the 
trial court or tribunal within 28 days after it is ordered by either the appellant or 
the appellee. The court reporter or recorder shall conform in all other respects 
with the requirements of MCR 7.210.
(D) Transcript Fee. The court reporter or recorder shall be entitled to the sum of 
$3.00 per original page and 50 cents per page for each copy for transcripts 
ordered and timely filed in appeals processed under the expedited docket. If the 
court reporter or recorder does not timely file the transcript, the rate will remain 
$1.75 per original page and 30 cents per page for each transcript, as set by MCL 
600.2543.
9. Briefs on Appeal.
(A) With the following exceptions, the parties' briefs shall conform to the 
requirements of MCR 7.212.
(B) Time For Filing.
(1) The appellant's brief shall be filed within 28 days after the claim of appeal 
is filed, the order granting leave is certified, or the timely ordered transcript is 
timely filed with the trial court, whichever is later, or as ordered by the Court. 
In appeals by leave, the appellant may rely on the application for leave to 
appeal rather than filing a separate brief by filing 5 copies of the application 
for leave to appeal with a cover letter indicating that the appellant is relying 
on the application in lieu of filing a brief on appeal.
(2) The appellee's brief shall be filed within 21 days after the appellant's brief 
is served on the appellee, or as ordered by the Court.
(3) Time for filing any party's brief may be extended for 14 days on motion 
for good cause shown. If the motion is filed by the appellant within the 
original 28 days brief filing period, the motion will toll the time for any 
sanctions for untimely briefs. A motion may include a statement from 
opposing counsel that counsel does not oppose the 14-day extension. A 
motion to extend the time for filing a brief will be submitted for disposition 
forthwith; opposing counsel need not file an answer.
(4) If the appellant's brief is not filed within 7 days after the date due, the 
Court of Appeals shall issue an order assessing costs and warning the 
appellant that the case will be dismissed if the brief is not filed within 14 days 
after the deadline. If the brief is not filed within that 14-day period, the Court 
of Appeals shall issue an order that dismisses the appeal and that may assess 
additional costs.
(C) Length and Form. Briefs filed under this administrative order are limited to 35 
pages, double-spaced, exclusive of tables, indexes, and appendices.
(1) At the time each brief is filed, the filing party must provide the Court of 
Appeals with that party's trial court summary disposition motion or response, 
brief, and appendices. Failure to file these documents at the time of filing the 
appellant's brief will not extend the time to file the appellee's brief, however.
(2) The appellant may wish to include a copy of the transcript (if any) if it was 
completed after the lower court file was transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
(D) Reply briefs may be filed within 14 days of the filing of appellee's brief and 
are limited to 5 pages, double-spaced, exclusive of tables, indexes, and 
appendices.
10. Record on Appeal. The Court of Appeals shall request the record on appeal from 
the trial court or tribunal clerk as soon as jurisdiction has been confirmed and 
material filing deficiencies have been corrected. The trial court or tribunal clerk shall 
transmit the record as directed in MCR 7.210(G).
11. Notice of Cases. Within 7 days after the filing of the appellee's brief, or after the 
expiration of the time for filing the appellee's brief, the clerk shall notify the parties 
that the case will be submitted as a "calendar case" on the summary disposition 
track.
12. Decision of the Court. The opinion or order of the panel shall be issued no later 
than 35 days after submission of the case to, or oral argument before, a panel of 
judges for final disposition. 
This order will remain in effect for two years from the date of its implementation, 
during which time the Court of Appeals Delay Reduction Work Group will monitor the 
expedited docket program. If, at any time during that monitoring process, it becomes 
apparent to the work group that procedural aspects of the program need to be 
modified, the group is encouraged to seek authorization from this Court to implement 
modifications. The work group will provide this Court with written updates on the pilot 
program before the one-year and eighteen-month anniversaries of the program's 
implementation. At the end of the two-year pilot period, this Court will evaluate 
expedited processing of summary disposition appeals to determine whether the 
procedure will be discontinued, changed, or continued.