Michigan Administrative Orders (con't)

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2004-5 (Amended)
Expedited Summary Disposition Docket in the Court of Appeals
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2004-5, this Court adopted an expedited 
summary disposition docket in the Court of Appeals to take effect on January 1, 2005, 
and to expire on December 31, 2006. We now order that the expedited summary 
disposition docket continue in effect, as modified infra, for a twelve-month period.
1. Applicability. This amended administrative order applies to appeals filed on or after 
January 1, 2006, 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) the stipulation of the parties 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, or an 
answer to an application for leave to appeal, filed under this administrative order shall 
conform in all pertinent respects with the requirements of MCR 7.205. At the time an 
application or an answer is filed, the filing party must provide the Court of Appeals 
with 5 copies of that party's trial court summary disposition motion or response, brief, 
and appendices.
6. Claim of Cross-Appeal. Subject to the filing deadline contained in section 2, a claim 
of cross-appeal filed under this administrative order shall conform in all other 
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. A motion to remove may be filed by any party at any time. 
However, filing of the motion most closely in time to discovery of the basis for 
removal will maximize the likelihood that the motion will be granted.
(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. If applicable, 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) Administrative Removal. 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 order shall state whether, and the deadlines by which, the 
parties are entitled to file briefs in accordance with the time and page limitations 
set forth in MCR 7.212.
8. Transcript - Production for Purposes of Appeal.
(A) Appellant.
(1) The appellant must order the transcript of the hearing(s) on the motion 
for summary disposition before or contemporaneously with the filing of the 
claim of appeal or application for leave to appeal, unless there is no record to 
transcribe or all parties to the appeal stipulate that the transcript is 
unnecessary.
(2) Evidence that the transcript was ordered must be filed with the claim of 
appeal or application for leave to appeal. Appropriate evidence of the ordering 
includes (but is not limited to) the following:
(a) a letter to the specific court reporter requesting the specific hearing 
dates and enclosing any required deposit; or 
(b) an "Appeal Transcript, Demand, Order and Acknowledgment" form, or 
(c) a court reporter or recorder's certificate. 
(3) If the transcript is not timely filed, the appellant or an appellee may file an 
appropriate motion with the Court of Appeals at any time. Avoiding undue 
delay in filing the motion under the circumstances of the case, and concisely 
stating the specific basis for it, will maximize the likelihood that the motion 
will be granted.
(4) If an appropriate motion is filed, the order disposing of such motion shall 
state the time for filing any outstanding brief(s).
(5) Absent an order of the Court of Appeals that resets the time, and 
regardless of whether the ordered transcript is timely filed, the time for filing 
the appellant's brief will commence on the date the claim of appeal was filed 
or the order granting leave was certified . 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. See section 9(B)(1).
(B) Appellee.
(1) If the transcript has been ordered by the appellant but is not filed by the 
time the appellant's brief is served on an appellee, the appellee may file an 
appropriate motion with the Court of Appeals. Avoiding undue delay in filing 
the motion under the circumstances of the case, and concisely stating the 
specific basis for it, will maximize the likelihood that the motion will be 
granted.
(2) If an appropriate motion is filed, the order shall state the time for filing 
any outstanding appellee briefs.
(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 in appeals processed under the expedited docket, if the transcript is filed 
within 28 days after it was ordered. If the court reporter or recorder does not file 
the transcript within 28 days after it was ordered, 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) In appeals by right, the appellant's brief shall be filed within 56 days after 
the claim of appeal is filed, or as ordered by the Court. In appeals by leave, 
the appellant's brief shall be filed within 28 days after the order granting leave 
is certified, 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 
timely filing 5 copies of the application for leave to appeal with a new cover 
page indicating that the appellant is relying on the application in lieu of filing a 
brief on appeal. The cover page should indicate whether oral argument is 
requested or is not requested. MCR 7.212(C)(1).
(2) The appellee's brief shall be filed within 28 days after the appellant's brief 
is served on the appellee, or as ordered by the Court. In appeals by leave, the 
appellee may rely on the answer to the application for leave to appeal rather 
than filing a separate brief by timely filing 5 copies of the answer to the 
application for leave to appeal with a new cover page indicating that the 
appellee is relying on the answer to the application in lieu of filing a brief on 
appeal. The cover page should indicate whether oral argument is requested or 
is not requested. MCR 7.212(C)(1) and (D)(1).
(3) Time for filing any party's brief may be extended for 14 days on motion 
for good cause shown, filed within the original brief-filing period. If the motion 
is filed by the appellant within the original 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. 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. Provided such omission is 
noted appropriately in the appellee's brief, the appellee may omit these 
appendices if they were included with the appellant's brief.
(D) A reply brief may be filed within 14 days after the appellee's brief is served on 
the appellant, and is 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 28 days after 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 amended order will remain in effect until December 31, 2006, during which time 
the Court of Appeals 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.
[Effective January 1, 2006]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2004-5 (SECOND AMENDED)
Expedited Summary Disposition Docket in the Court of Appeals
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2004-5, this Court adopted an expedited 
summary disposition docket in the Court of Appeals to take effect on January 1, 2005, 
and to expire on December 31, 2006.  On December 21, 2005, Amended 
Administrative Order 2004-5 was adopted to take effect January 1, 2006.  We now 
order that the expedited summary disposition docket continue in effect, as modified
infra, for an additional one-year period to expire December 31, 2007.
Although the Court of Appeals has failed to meet the stated objectives for this pilot 
program during its existence, the Court is persuaded to approve the extension of the 
expedited summary disposition docket because the Court of Appeals Work Group 
(which consists of members of the Court of Appeals, Court of Appeals staff members, 
and members of the Appellate Practice Section) unanimously recommended the 
extension in anticipation that the newest recommended changes will permit the 
program to meet its goals.  The Court of Appeals and members of the bar should not 
presume that this extension in any way signals the Court’s intention to eventually 
make the program permanent, particularly if it does not meet its intended goal of 
reducing appellate delay in the Court of Appeal during this additional year of 
experimentation.
1. Applicability. This amended administrative order applies to appeals filed on or after 
January 1, 2007, arising solely from orders granting or denying motions for summary 
disposition under MCR 2.116.  Unless otherwise removed by order of the Court of 
Appeals, these appeals shall 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  for a party to divert such appeals to the standard 
appeal track.
2. Time Requirements. Appeals by right or by leave in cases covered by this second 
amended order must be taken within the time stated in MCR 7.204 or MCR 7.205. 
Claims of cross-appeal must be filed within the time stated in MCR 7.207.
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 is not required unless the case is removed by order 
before the filing of the appellant’s brief.
(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) the stipulation of the parties 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, or an 
answer to an application for leave to appeal, filed under this second amended 
administrative order shall conform in all pertinent respects with the requirements of 
MCR 7.205. At the time an application or an answer is filed, the filing party must 
provide the Court of Appeals with 5 copies of that party's trial court summary 
disposition motion or response, brief, and appendices.
6. Claim of Cross-Appeal. A claim of cross-appeal filed under this second amended 
administrative order shall conform in all pertinent respects with the requirements of 
MCR 7.207.  Upon the filing of a claim of cross-appeal in an appeal proceeding on the 
summary disposition track, the Court will remove the case from the track as provided 
in section 7, if it determines that the case is no longer appropriate for the track.
7. Removal from Summary Disposition Track. A party may file a motion, or the Court 
may act sua sponte to remove a case from the summary disposition track to the 
standard track.
(A) Time to File. A motion to remove may be filed by any party at any time. 
(B) Form. Motions to remove shall concisely state the basis for removal, and must 
be in the form prescribed by the Court of Appeals. Factors that weigh in favor of 
removal include:
(1) the length of one or more briefs exceeds 25 pages; removal of the case 
from the summary disposition track becomes more likely as the briefs 
approach the 35-page limit under section 9(C),
(2) the lower court record consists of more than 3 moderately sized files and 
more than 100 pages of transcripts from the relevant hearing(s) and 
deposition(s),
(3) there are more than four issues to be decided, and
(4) one or more of the issues are matters of first impression, including the 
first interpretation of a statute, or are factually or legally complex.
(C) Fee.  No fee is required for a motion to remove from the summary disposition 
track.
(D) Answer. An answer to a motion to remove must be filed within 7 days after 
service of the motion. 
(E) Disposition. Motions to remove shall be liberally granted. 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, if any, in the case. 
The time for further filings in the case will commence on the date of certification 
of the order on the motion.
(F) Docketing Statement. If the case is removed from the summary disposition 
track before the filing of the appellant’s brief, a docketing statement must be filed 
within 14 days after the date of certification of the order on the motion.
(G) Administrative Removal. The Court of Appeals will remove a case from the 
summary disposition track, on its own motion, if it appears to the Court that the 
case is not an appropriate candidate for processing under this second amended 
administrative order.  Such administrative removal may be made at any time, 
even after the parties’ briefs are filed.
(H) Effect of Removal. If the Court of Appeals removes a case from the summary 
disposition track before the filing of the appellant’s brief, the parties are entitled 
to file briefs in accordance with time requirements and page limitations set forth 
in MCR 7.212.  New or supplemental briefs shall not be permitted in cases 
removed from the summary disposition track after the filing of the parties’ briefs 
except upon motion of a party and further order of the Court. 
8. Transcript - Production for Purposes of Appeal.
(A) Appellant.
(1) The appellant must order the transcript of the hearing(s) on the motion 
for summary disposition before or contemporaneously with the filing of the 
claim of appeal or application for leave to appeal, unless there is no record to 
transcribe or all parties to the appeal stipulate that the transcript is 
unnecessary.
(2) Evidence that the transcript was ordered must be filed with the claim of 
appeal or application for leave to appeal. Appropriate evidence of the ordering 
includes (but is not limited to) the following:
(a) a letter to the specific court reporter requesting the specific hearing 
dates and enclosing any required deposit; or 
(b) an "Appeal Transcript, Demand, Order and Acknowledgment" form, or 
(c) a court reporter or recorder's certificate. 
(3) If the transcript is not timely filed, the appellant or an appellee may file an 
appropriate motion with the Court of Appeals at any time. Avoiding undue 
delay in filing the motion under the circumstances of the case, and concisely 
stating the specific basis for it, will maximize the likelihood that the motion 
will be granted.
(4) If an appropriate motion is filed, the order disposing of such motion shall 
state the time for filing any outstanding brief(s).
(5) Absent an order of the Court of Appeals that resets the time, the 
appellant’s brief will be due as provided in section 9(B)(1) regardless of 
whether the ordered transcript is timely filed.  
(B) Appellee.
(1) If the transcript has been ordered by the appellant but is not filed by the 
time the appellant's brief is served on an appellee, the appellee may file an 
appropriate motion with the Court of Appeals. Avoiding undue delay in filing 
the motion under the circumstances of the case, and concisely stating the 
specific basis for it, will maximize the likelihood that the motion will be 
granted.
(2) If an appropriate motion is filed, the order shall state the time for filing 
any outstanding appellee briefs.
(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 in appeals processed under the expedited docket, if the transcript is filed 
within 28 days after it was ordered. If the court reporter or recorder does not file 
the transcript within 28 days after it was ordered, 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) In appeals by right, the appellant's brief shall be filed within 56 days after 
the claim of appeal is filed, or as ordered by the Court. In appeals by leave, 
the appellant's brief shall be filed within 28 days after the order granting leave 
is certified, 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 
timely filing 5 copies of the application for leave to appeal with a new cover 
page indicating that the appellant is relying on the application in lieu of filing a 
brief on appeal. The cover page should indicate whether oral argument is 
requested or is not requested. MCR 7.212(C)(1).
(2) The appellee's brief shall be filed within 28 days after the appellant's brief 
is served on the appellee, or as ordered by the Court. In appeals by leave, the 
appellee may rely on the answer to the application for leave to appeal rather 
than filing a separate brief by timely filing 5 copies of the answer to the 
application for leave to appeal with a new cover page indicating that the 
appellee is relying on the answer to the application in lieu of filing a brief on 
appeal. The cover page should indicate whether oral argument is requested or 
is not requested. MCR 7.212(C)(1) and (D)(1).
(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 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 7 days 
after the clerk’s certification of the order.  If the brief is not filed within that 7-
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 second amended administrative order 
are limited to 35 pages, double-spaced, exclusive of tables, indexes, and 
appendices. 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.  If the 
appellant filed  copies of the appellee’s summary disposition response, brief, and 
appendices, the appellee may omit these documents provided that appellee notes 
the omission prominently on the title page of the appellee’s brief. 
(D) A reply brief may be filed within 14 days after the appellee's brief is served on 
the appellant, and is 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 28 days after 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 amended order will remain in effect until December 31, 2007, during which time 
the Court of Appeals 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 a written report by November 1, 2007, for this Court’s use in 
evaluating expedited processing of summary disposition appeals to determine 
whether the procedure will be discontinued, changed, or continued.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2004-6
Minimum Standards for Indigent Criminal Appellate Defense Services
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court has considered revised 
minimum standards for indigent criminal appellate defense services proposed by the 
Appellate Defender Commission pursuant to 1978 PA 620, MCL 780.711 to 780.719. 
The Court approves the standards with some revisions replacing those adopted in 
Administrative Order No. 1981-7, effective January 1, 2005.

PREAMBLE:
The Michigan Legislature in MCL 780.712(5) requires the Appellate Defender 
Commission to develop minimum standards to which all criminal appellate defense 
services shall conform. Pursuant to this mandate, these standards are intended to 
serve as guidelines to help counsel achieve the goal of effective appellate and 
postjudgment representation. Criminal appellants are not constitutionally entitled to 
counsel's adherence to these guidelines. Hence, counsel's failure to comply with any 
standard does not of itself constitute grounds for either a claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel or a violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, and 
no failure to comply with one or more of these standards shall, unless it is 
independently a violation of a rule of professional conduct, serve as the basis for a 
request for investigation with the Attorney Grievance Commission.

Standard 1
Counsel shall promptly examine the trial court record and register of actions to 
determine the proceedings, in addition to trial, plea, and sentencing, for which 
transcripts or other documentation may be useful or necessary, and, in consultation 
with the defendant and, if possible, trial counsel, determine whether any relevant 
proceedings have been omitted from the register of actions, following which counsel 
shall request preparation and filing of such additional pertinent transcripts and review 
all transcripts and lower court records relevant to the appeal. Although the trial court 
is responsible for ordering the record pursuant to MCR 6.425(F)(2), appellate counsel 
is nonetheless responsible for ensuring that all useful and necessary portions of the 
transcript are ordered.

Standard 2
Before filing the initial postconviction or appellate motion or brief and after reviewing 
the relevant transcripts and lower court records, counsel must consult with the 
defendant about the proposed issues to be raised on appeal and advise of any 
foreseeable benefits or risks in pursuing the appeal generally or any particular issue 
specifically. At counsel's discretion, such confidential consultation may occur during 
an interview with the defendant in person or through an attorney agent, by a 
comparable video alternative, or by such other reasonable means as counsel deems 
sufficient, in light of all the circumstances.

Standard 3
Counsel should raise those issues, recognizable by a practitioner familiar with criminal 
law and procedures on a current basis and who engages in diligent legal research, 
which offer reasonable prospects of meaningful postconviction or appellate relief, in a 
form that protects where possible the defendant's option to pursue collateral attacks 
in state or federal courts. If a potentially meritorious issue involves a matter not 
reflected in the trial court record, counsel should move for and conduct such 
evidentiary hearings as may be required.

Standard 4
When a defendant insists that a particular claim or claims be raised on appeal against 
the advice of counsel, counsel shall inform the defendant of the right to present the 
claim or claims in propria persona. Defendant's filing shall consist of one brief filed 
with or without an appropriate accompanying motion. Counsel shall also provide such 
procedural advice and clerical assistance as may be required to conform the 
defendant's filing for acceptability to the court. The defendant's filing in propria 
persona must be received by the Court of Appeals within 84 days after the appellant's 
brief is filed by the attorney, but if the case is noticed for submission within that 84-
day period, the filing must be received no later than 7 days before the date of 
submission, or within the 84-day period, whichever is earlier. The 84-day deadline 
may be extended only by the Court of Appeals on counsel's motion, upon a showing 
of good cause for the failure to file defendant's pleading within the 84-day deadline.

Standard 5
An appeal may never be abandoned by counsel; an appeal may be dismissed on the 
basis of the defendant's informed consent, or counsel may seek withdrawal pursuant 
to Anders v California, 386 US 738; 87 S Ct 1396; 18 L Ed 2d 493 (1967), and 
related constitutional principles.

Standard 6
Counsel should request oral argument, and preserve the right to oral argument by 
timely filing the defendant's brief on appeal. Oral argument may be waived if counsel 
subsequently concludes that the defendant's rights will be adequately protected by 
submission of the appeal on the briefs alone.

Standard 7
Counsel must keep the defendant apprised of the status of the appeal and promptly 
forward copies of pleadings filed and opinions or orders issued by a court.

Standard 8
Upon final disposition of the case by the court, counsel shall promptly and accurately 
inform the defendant of the courses of action that may be pursued as a result of that 
disposition, and the scope of any further representation counsel may provide. If 
counsel's representation terminates, counsel shall cooperate promptly and fully with 
the defendant and any successor counsel in the transmission of records and 
information.

Standard 9
Upon acceptance of the assignment, counsel is prohibited from seeking or accepting 
fees from the defendant or any other source beyond those authorized by the 
appointing authority.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2004-7
Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plans for the Third Circuit of Wayne 
County, the 19th District Court, the 29th District Court, and the 35th District 
Court 

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 the following concurrent jurisdiction plans 
effective May 1, 2005:
Third Circuit of Wayne County and the 19th District Court
Third Circuit of Wayne County and the 29th District Court
Third Circuit of Wayne County and the 35th District Court
The plans shall remain on file with the State Court Administrator.
Amendments of 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.2005-1
Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plans for the 41st Circuit Court, the 95B 
District Court, and the Iron County Probate Court, and for the 32nd Circuit 
Court and the Ontonagon County Probate Court 
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 this Court.
The Court hereby approves adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction plans 
effective September 1, 2005:
41st Circuit Court, 95B District Court, and Iron County Probate Court
32nd Circuit Court and Ontonagon County Probate Court
The plans shall remain on file with the state court administrator.
Amendments of 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.
It is further ordered that Administrative Order No. 1999-2 is rescinded effective 
September 1, 2005.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2005-2
Clarification of Time for Filing Postjudgment Motions 
On July 13, 2005, this Court entered an order, effective January 1, 2006, that 
reduced the time from 12 months to 6 months for filing postjudgment motions 
pursuant to MCR 6.310(C) (motion to withdraw plea), 6.419(B) (motion for directed 
verdict of acquittal), 6.429(B) (motion to correct invalid sentence), and 6.431(A) 
(motion for new trial). This amendment is not applicable to cases where the order 
appointing appellate counsel was entered on or before December 31, 2005. In cases 
where the order appointing appellate counsel was entered on or before December 31, 
2005, such postjudgment motions shall be filed within 12 months of the date of the 
order appointing appellate counsel.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2005-3
Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the 45th Circuit Court and the 3B 
District Court of St. Joseph County 
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 the following concurrent jurisdiction plan 
effective March 1, 2006:
The 45th Circuit Court and the 3B District Court
The plans shall remain on file with the state court administrator.
Amendments of 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.2006-2
Privacy Policy and Access to Court Records
The Social Security Number Privacy Act, 2004 PA 454, requires all persons who, in the 
ordinary course of business, obtain one or more social security numbers, to create a 
privacy policy in order to ensure the confidentiality of social security numbers, 
prohibit unlawful disclosure of such numbers, limit access to information or 
documents containing social security numbers, provide for proper disposal of 
documents containing social security numbers, and establish penalties for violation of 
the privacy policy.
The management of documents within court files is the responsibility of the judiciary. 
In the regular course of business, courts are charged with the duty to maintain 
information contained within public documents that is itself nonpublic, based upon 
statute, court rule, or court order. In carrying out its responsibility to maintain these 
documents, the judiciary must balance the need for openness with the delicate issue 
of personal privacy. In an effort to prevent the illegal or unethical use of information 
found within court files, the following privacy policy is provided for all court records, 
effective March 1, 2006, and to be implemented prospectively.
Accordingly, on order of the Court,
A. The State Court Administrative Office is directed to assist trial courts in 
implementing this privacy policy and to update case file management standards 
established pursuant to this order.
B. Trial courts are directed to:
1. limit the collection and use of a social security number for party and court 
file identification purposes on cases filed on or after March 1, 2006, to the last 
4 digits;
2. implement updated case file management standards for nonpublic records;
3. eliminate the collection of social security numbers for purposes other than 
those required or allowed by statute, court rule, court order, or collection 
activity when it is required for purposes of identification;
4. establish minimum penalties for court employees and custodians of the 
records who breach this privacy policy; and
5. cooperate with the State Court Administrative Office in implementing the 
privacy policy established pursuant to this order.
On further order of the Court, the following policies for access to court records are 
established.

Access To Public Court Records
Access to court records is governed by MCR 8.119 and the Case File Management 
Standards.

Access To Nonpublic Records
1. Maintenance of nonpublic records is governed by the Nonpublic and Limited 
Access Court Records Chart and the Case File Management Standards.
2. The parties to a case are allowed to view nonpublic records within their court 
file unless otherwise provided by statute or court rule.
3. If a request is made by a member of the public to inspect or copy a nonpublic 
record or a record that does not exist, court staff shall state, "No public record 
exists."

Social Security Numbers And Nonpublic Records
1. The clerk of the court shall be allowed to maintain public files containing social 
security numbers on documents filed with the clerk subject to the requirements in 
this section.
2. No person shall file a document with the court that contains another person's 
social security number except when the number is required or allowed by statute, 
court rule, court order, or for purposes of collection activity when it is required for 
identification. A person who files a document with the court in violation of this 
directive is subject to punishment for contempt and is liable for costs and attorney 
fees related to protection of the social security number.
3. A person whose social security number is contained in a document filed with 
the clerk on or after March 1, 2006, may file a motion asking the court to direct 
the clerk to:
a. redact the number on any document that does not require or allow a social 
security number pursuant to statute, court rule, court order, or for purposes 
of collection activity when it is required for identification; or
b. file a document that requires or allows a social security number pursuant to 
statute, court rule, court order, or for purposes of collection activity when it is 
required for identification, in a separate nonpublic file.
The clerk shall comply with the court's order and file the request in the court file.
4. Dissemination of social security numbers is restricted to the purposes for which 
they were collected and for which their use is authorized by federal or state law. 
Upon receiving a request for copies of a public document filed on or after March 1, 
2006, that contains a social security number pursuant to statute, court rule, court 
order, or for purposes of collection activity when it is required for identification, a 
court shall provide a copy of the document after redacting all social security 
numbers on the copy. This requirement does not apply to requests for certified 
copies or true copies when required by law or for requests to view or inspect files. 
This requirement does not apply to those uses for which the social security 
number was provided.
Retention And Disposal Of Nonpublic Records
Retention and disposal of nonpublic records and information shall be governed by 
General Schedule 16 and the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2006-3
Michigan Uniform System of Citation
On order of the Court, Administrative Order Nos. 1987-2 and 2001-5, which 
amended the Michigan Uniform System of Citations, are rescinded. Effective May 1, 
2006, all reported decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals shall 
adhere to and follow the Michigan Uniform System of Citation as revised by this order.
The Michigan Uniform System of Citation provides a comprehensive scheme for 
citation of authority in documents filed with or issued by Michigan courts. This 
revision reflects the style currently used in the opinions of the Supreme Court as 
published in Michigan Reports. It is based on the former Uniform System of Citations,
Administrative Order No. 1971-3, 385 Mich xxvi-xxxv (1971), Administrative Order 
No. 1973-5, 390 Mich xxxi (1973), Administrative Order No. 1987-2, 428 Mich cviii 
(1987), Administrative Order No. 2001-5, 464 Mich lxxviii (2001), and the Proposed 

Rules of Citation, 402A Mich 455-468 (1978).
For matters not covered, refer to The Bluebook, A Uniform System of Citation
(18th ed), for guidance, but conform citations to Michigan citation style.
I. Citation of Authority
A. Citation of Cases
1. Initial citation.
The first time a case is cited in an opinion, either in the body of the 
text or in a footnote, cite in full the official reporter of its jurisdiction 
(where available), and include the parallel citation of the regional 
reporter. 
Mayberry v Pryor, 422 Mich 579; 374 NW2d 683 (1985).
If a case is first cited in an order, either in the body of the text or in a 
footnote, cite the official report only.
Mayberry v Pryor, 422 Mich 579 (1985).
Where an official citation is not yet available, provide blanks for the 
volume and page numbers.
Mayberry v Pryor, _____ Mich ____; 374 
NW2d 
683 (1985).
If a case is initially cited only in a footnote, it must be re-cited in full
in the text if it is referred to subsequently in the text.
2. Subsequent citation.
a. Once cited in full in the text, a case need not be cited again 
in full in the text or a footnote.  Subsequent reference in the 
text or in a footnote may use any of the following shortened 
forms:
E.g.,  Mayberry;  Mayberry, supra; 
Mayberry v Pryor.  (N.B.: "Id." may be 
used as a subsequent reference  only if 
no other authority intervenes between 
the previous citation of the same source 
and "id.")
b. Where a case is cited in full  in a footnote, a subsequent 
short-form citation may be used in a subsequent footnote to 
refer the reader to the full citation:
Mayberry, n 4 supra.
3. Point or "jump" citation.
a. To refer to an internal page of an opinion, cite the  official
reporter where available:
1) initial citation: include the "jump" page in the 
complete citation:
Mayberry v Pryor, 422 Mich 
579, 587; 374 NW2d 683 
(1985); or
2) subsequent citation: append the "jump" page to any 
short-form citation:
Mayberry,  supra, p 587; 
Mayberry, supra at 587; 
Mayberry, p 587; id., p 587; id. at 
587; 422 Mich 587.
(N.B.: The form of the short-form 
citation  must be consistent throughout 
an opinion.  Do  not mix  Mayberry, 
supra, p 587, with  Mayberry, supra at 
587.) 
b. If the official report of a case is not yet available, refer to 
the "jump" page in an unofficial report:

1) initial citation:   Galster v Woods (On 
Rehearing), 173 Cal App 3d 529, ____; 
219 Cal Rptr 500, 509 (1985);
2) subsequent citation: Galster, supra, 219 
Cal Rptr 509; or  id., 219 Cal Rptr 509; 
or 219 Cal Rptr 509 (N.B.: it is 
mandatory in this situation that the 
identity of the  unofficial reporter be 
shown because references to pages not 
otherwise identified are presumed to be 
to the official reporter.)
4. Case names.
a. Italicizing.  Names of cases should be italicized both in the 
text of an opinion and in footnotes.  Underscoring no longer 
should be used to indicate italics.
b. Official sources.  Cite the name of a case as set forth on the 
first page of the official reporter as fully as necessary for 
recognition.  Do not show et al., et ux., or like references to
other parties in a case name, but do show ex rel (for on the 
Relation of or for the use and benefit of) and the relator's 
name.
c. Abbreviations.  Where the name of the case as it appears in 
the official reporter is long or involved, it should be 
shortened.  Abbreviations are encouraged for common 
words such as Commission (Comm), County (Co), 
Manufacturing (Mfg), International (Int'l), etc., where 
appropriate.  Citations should include only the first plaintiff's 
surname or corporate name and the first defendant's 
surname or corporate name.
Examples:
The title in the official report of 262 US 
447 is Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
v Mellon,  Secretary of the Treasury, et 
al., and should be cited as 
Massachusetts v Mellon, 262 US 447; 43 
S Ct 597; 67 L Ed 1078 (1923).
International Union of Electrical, Radio 
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO Frigidaire 
Local 801 v NLRB, 113 US App DC 342; 
307 F2d 679 (1962), may be shortened 
to Electrical Workers Union v NLRB, etc.
d. Identical titles.  Where two or more separate cases with the 
same title are referred to in an opinion:

1) add the first names of the parties in order to 
distinguish the cases, e.g.,  People v John 
Smith/People v Mary Smith, etc.; or
2) add a roman numeral after the case name, e.g., 
Smith I, Smith II, etc.
(N.B.: Where cases with identical surnames are 
reported in the same volume, first names are 
included.  It is  not necessary to include first names 
when cited in a slip opinion unless two or more cases 
with such names are cited in the slip opinion.)
e. Officials as parties.
 1) Michigan cases:  If a person was sued in an official capacity, 
use that person's official title, not the name of the person
Jones v Secretary of State, not Jones v 
Austin;
Giannotta v Governor, not Giannotta v 
Milliken
2) United States Supreme Court cases and cases from 
other jurisdictions:  Follow the commonly accepted 
practice within the jurisdiction (if known) regarding 
the surname or title of the party.  Otherwise, follow 
(e)(1).  E.g., in cases decided in the United States 
Supreme Court and some sister states, the title of a 
party is not ordinarily used.
Example:
Massachusetts v Mellon, not Massachusetts v 
Secretary  of Treasury
f. State or city as a party.  Where a state or a city is a party, 
use only the name of the state or city:
The title that appears at 383 Mich 579 is 
Consumers Power Company v State of 
Michigan; cite it as Consumers Power Co 
v Michigan.
If the name of a city also commonly may 
be used as a surname, such as the city 
of Warren, cite as  Jones v City of 
Warren; but where a city is well known, 
it should be cited as Jones v Detroit.
g. Traffic violations, civil infractions.
1) In cases involving a civil infraction of a traffic 
ordinance of a political subdivision, the proper party 
is the subdivision:
City of Troy v Ohlinger, 438 Mich 
477; 475 NW2d 54 (1991),  not
People of the City of Troy, or 
People v Ohlinger.
2) However, where a civil infraction is a violation of the 
Vehicle Code, the proper party is the state:
People v Ferency, 133 Mich App 
526; 351 NW2d 225 (1984).
See 1978 PA 510, MCL 257.741.
h. County, township, or school district as a party.  Place the 
name of the county, township, or school district first and 
then Co, Twp, School Dist, or Bd of Ed, regardless of the 
entitlement of the case in the reports.
Examples:
Oakland Co v Smith; Bush v Waterford Twp; 
Jones v Waverly School Dist; Smith v 
Lansing Bd of Ed.
i. Second case name.  Do not give a second name for a case if 
the first will fully identify it.
Examples of a second name being required:
Harvey v  Lewis (In re Escrow Funds), 
364 Mich 491; 111 NW2d 119 (1961), 
and  Harvey v Lewis (In re Fee for
Receiver's Attorney), 364 Mich 493; 112 
NW2d 500 (1961).
j. Rehearing, remand, or amended.  If the opinion cited was 
decided on rehearing or after remand, the specification (On 
Rehearing), (On Remand), or (After Remand) is part of the 
title and must be included in the citation.  Also if an opinion 
is amended by a special panel of the Court of Appeals, the 
specification (Amended Opinion) should be included. 
Example:
People v Walker, 371 Mich 599; 124 
NW2d 761 (1963); People v Walker (On 
Rehearing), 374 Mich 331; 132 NW2d 87 
(1965).
k. Supplemental opinions.
Example:
In re Ernst, 373 Mich 337, Supplemental 
Opinion, 349; 129 NW2d 430 (1964).
l. Punctuation in case citations. 
1) The official volume number, reporter abbreviation, 
page number, parallel citation and year are in 
nonrestrictive apposition with the case name and 
must be preceded by a comma and followed by a 
comma, semicolon, period, or other punctuation 
(except where parenthetical matter postpones it).
Example:
"resolved in Village of Kingsford v 
Cudlip, 258 Mich 144; 241 NW 
893 (1932), where the Court . . . 
".
2) Parallel citations are separated from official citations 
and from other parallel citations by semicolons to 
avoid confusion with the commas that frequently 
separate point citations.  These semicolons should 
not be viewed as punctuation, but merely as 
separators.
Example:
People ex rel Gummow v Larson, 
35 Ill 2d 280, 282; 220 NE2d 165 
(1966).
However, where a string of citations is conjoined by "and," 
use commas to separate the complete citation of each case.
Example:
Nicholls v Charlevoix Circuit 
Judge, 155 Mich 455; 120 NW 
343 (1909), Kemp v Stradley, 134 
Mich 676; 97 NW 41 (1903), and 
Backus v Detroit, 49 Mich 110; 13 
NW 380 (1882).
Where a string of citations is not conjoined by "and," 
separate with semicolons.
m. Jurisdiction.
1) Michigan and state courts.  Jurisdiction is usually 
shown by the abbreviation of the title of the official 
reporter:  Michigan Supreme Court (Mich); Michigan 
Court of Appeals (Mich App); United States Supreme 
Court (US).  Where official reports are no longer 
published, the jurisdiction must be indicated in the 
parentheses at the end of the citation, followed by a 
comma and the year of decision.  For the highest 
court of a state, only the name of the state should be 
shown.  Use the abbreviations of state names listed 
in State abbreviations, p XX (Appendix A).  For 
intermediate appellate courts, abbreviate the name of 
the court in addition to the state name.
Examples:
People v Blythe, 417 Mich 430; 
339 NW2d 399 (1983);
Gaines v Betts, 2 Doug 98 (Mich, 
1845);
State v Gallion, 572 P2d 683 (Utah, 1977);
Miller v Stumbo, 661 SW2d 1 (Ky 
App, 1983)
2) Federal circuit courts.  Federal courts of appeals are 
shown in parentheses with the date of decision as CA 
plus the circuit number or "Fed" for the federal 
circuit.  E.g.:  CA 6, not 6 Cir or 6th Cir or CCA 6.  
(N.B.: The Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit is not shown in parentheses because 
there is an official reporter:  App DC or US App DC, 
and a citation of the official reporter indicates the 
jurisdiction.)
Examples:
Kirkland v Preston, 128 US App 
DC 148; 385 F2d 670 (1967).
Ierardi v Gunter,  528 F2d 929,
930-931 (CA 1, 1976).
3) Federal district courts.  Federal districts, but not 
divisions, are shown in parentheses if one exists (ED 
Mich, not ND ED Mich).  If a state comprises only one 
district, use D plus the state abbreviation, not the 
state abbreviation alone.
Example:
United States ex rel Mayberry v 
Yeager, 321 F Supp 199, 211 (D 
NJ, 1971).
4) Early US Supreme Court cases.  Early US reports, 
through 90 US, are to be cited by consecutive volume 
number in the US series.  The corresponding 
reporter's name (abbreviated) and volume number in 
parentheses may be added.
Example:

Sexton v Wheaton, 21 US (8 
Wheat) 229; 5 L Ed 603 (1823).
n. Parallel citations.
1) Parallel citations for United States Supreme Court 
reports are to be given in the order S Ct; L Ed.

2) A parallel citation of the National Reporter System 
Regional Reports is to be given if one exists.  For New 
York or California cases, the New York Supplement or 
California Reporter citation also must be given. 

3) Parallel citations of other reports, e.g., ALR,  may be 
given if the case is reported in full therein.
o. Unavailable citations.
1) When an official and a parallel citation are not yet 
available, provide blanks in which the information later 
can be inserted.
Example:
____ Mich ____; ____ NW2d ____ (1978).
Do not use this form where the citation will  never be 
available because reports have been discontinued.
2) USLW, LEXIS, WESTLAW, or other advance reports or 
abstract citations should be given only if  both the 
official  and the regional or other permanent unofficial 
report citations are not yet available.  
p. Periods and spacing of report names and capitalization.
1) Use no periods in abbreviations of report names, even 
if there are two or more words, and do not insert a 
space where single letters abbreviate the words.
Examples:
NE; NW; NY; RI; US; ALR
2) Do insert a space where more than one letter is used 
to abbreviate the individual words, and capitalize the 
first letter of each word.
Examples:
Mich App; F Supp; US App DC; S Ct; L Ed
3) Insert a space between the report name and series 
designation (2d, etc.) if the last word is abbreviated 
with more than one letter; otherwise do not.
Examples:
(No space)  F2d; NYS2d; ALR3d; A2d; NE2d; 
SW2d
(Space)  Wis 2d; So 2d; Misc 2d; L Ed 2d
(Exception- space)  LRA NS
q. Date of decision.  Generally, the year of decision should 
follow parallel citations in parentheses; however, in the Court 
of Appeals, where controlling authority is governed by MCR 
7.215(J)(1), the year of release should be inserted.
E.g., Farrell v Auto Club of Michigan was decided on October 
25, 1990, but was approved for publication on January 16, 
1991.  The correct citation form is:   Farrell v Auto Club of 
Michigan (On Remand), 187 Mich App 220; 466  NW2d 298 
(1991).  The time of release is not to be noted in the 
citation.
r. Subsequent history.  Citation of denial of discretionary action 
such as rehearing, leave to appeal, certiorari, 
reconsideration, or the like should not be indicated unless 
jurisprudentially significant within the jurisdiction.  (N.B.:  In 
Michigan, denial of leave has no effect on the precedence of 
a case, see MCR 7.321; this is also true with regard to denial 
of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, see 
Maryland v Baltimore Radio Show, 338 US 912, 919 [1950].)
Where given, subsequent history should be indicated by 
using the following abbreviations without periods and  not
followed by a comma:
affirmed                                                              aff'd
affirming                                                             aff'g
appeal dismissed                                            app dis
certiorari denied                                            cert den
leave to appeal denied                                 lv den
leave to appeal granted                               lv gtd
modified                                                             mod
rehearing denied                                            reh den
rehearing granted                                          reh gtd
reversed                                                            rev'd
reversed on other grounds                        rev'd on other grounds
reversing                                                           rev'g
vacated                                                              no abbreviation
Only the official report of subsequent action should be cited.
s. Unreported matters.  Cite unpublished Michigan cases and 
orders as follows, and foreign cases by analogy:
A v B, unpublished opinion per curiam 
(or 
memorandum opinion) of the Court of 
Appeals, issued [month, day, year] 
(Docket No. ______).
A v B, unpublished order of the Court 
of Appeals, entered [month, day, 
year] (Docket No. ______).
A v B, unpublished opinion of the 
_____ Circuit Court, issued 
______________________ (Docket 
No. _______ [suffix]).
Unpublished opinion of the Attorney 
General (No. ______, [month, day, 
year]).
t. String citations.  Use of overly long string citations, even 
in footnotes, generally should be avoided inasmuch as 
"they may cast doubt upon the credibility of your claims 
because they can give the impression that your case is so 
weak that you have to substantiate it with every source 
you can find."  More effective is the use of "only one or 
two of your strongest sources."  Charrow & Erhardt, Clear 
and Effective Legal Writing (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 
1986), ch 3, p 64.

5. Consistent citation form.
The citation form used within an opinion should be uniform, i.e., do 
not mix id., p 270, with id. at 270, or Ensign, supra, p 270, with 
Ensign, supra at 270.
B. Citation of Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations, Court Rules, and 
Jury Instructions

1. Constitutions.
a. Michigan.  Give the year of the constitution (not the year 
of an amendment), article, and section number in Arabic
numerals.
Example:
Const 1963, art 6, § 1; Const 1963, sched § 1.
If the section has been amended since adoption, the reference 
is presumed to be to the current section unless otherwise 
indicated.

b. United States.  Give the article or amendment number in 
Roman numerals and the section number in Arabic
numerals:  
Example:
US Const, art III, § 1.  
For amendments:
US Const, Am XIV (not Art 
XIV).
c. Other states.  Cite by analogy to the Michigan 
Constitution and United States Constitution.
2. Statutes.
a. Michigan. 
1) Public and local acts. 
Cite the year, "PA" or "LA," and the act number.
Examples:
1974 PA 296, not Act 296, 1974;
1974 LA 1.
If enacted at an extra session, the extra session 
designation follows the year in parentheses.

Examples:
1912 (1st Ex Sess) PA 10, part 2, § 9
1967 (Ex Sess) PA 3
2) Amended acts.  
Cite as: 1961 PA 236, as amended (or as added) 
by 1974 PA 52, MCL 600.103.
3) Compiled Laws.  Cite the official compilations of 
1948, 1970, and 1979 of the Michigan Compiled 
Laws.  (N.B.: Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated 
[MCLA] and Michigan Compiled Laws Service 
[MCLS] have the same numbering system.)

Examples:
1948 CL 566.140
1970 CL 35.291.
When citing, use MCL for the current (1979) compilation, 
not MCLA or MCLS, e.g., MCL 776.20.  Inclusion of the 
public act number is optional.  If used, the form is: 1937 
PA 286, MCL 487.703.  Subsequent references in the 
same opinion may be shortened as follows:
§ 3, or Act 286, § 3

4) Catchlines.   The boldface catchlines found at the 
beginning of, and sometimes elsewhere in, statutes
in the Public and Local Acts, MCL, MCLA, and MCLS 
were inserted by an editor, not enacted by the 
Legislature.  They are not part of the statute and 
should not be included when quoting a statute.  
Similarly, catchlines found in a statute following the 
section number, as in many sections of the 
Michigan Penal Code, are not part of the statute 
and should not be included in quotations.

5) Section numbers.  Generally speaking, any section 
number appearing at the beginning of a statute 
also should be omitted from the quotation unless 
needed for clarity, e.g., if the sections of the act 
are not evident and will be used later in an opinion 
in short form for reference.

6) History.  The statutory history that follows each 
section also is not part of the legislative enactment 
and should not be included in quoted material.

Examples:
691.1412  Claims under act; 
defenses available. [delete]
[Sec. 12.]  [delete] Claims 
under this act are subject to all 
of the defenses available to 
claims sounding in tort brought 
against private persons.
[HISTORY:  New 1964, p. 224, 
Act 170, Eff.  Jul. 1, 1965.]      
[delete]

7) Short titles.
a) Official title.  If an act has an official "short 
title" enacted as part of the act, capitalize 
the initial letters of the title.  Indication of 
the year of enactment is unnecessary, even 
though it may be given as part of the title.

Example:
1961 PA 236, § 101, MCL 
600.101 provides:
"This act shall be known and 
may be cited as the revised 
judicature act of 1961."
Omit the 1961 in citation, referring to it 
merely as the Revised Judicature Act.
Generally recognized abbreviations of titles 
may be used, whether mentioned in the act 
or not.  For example, § 101 of the Revised 
Judicature Act specifically authorizes use of 
the abbreviation "RJA"; § 1101 of the 
Uniform Commercial Code gives the title 
without mentioning an abbreviation, but UCC 
is permissible.
b) No official title.  If an act does not have an 
official title, a short title used in referring to 
it should not be capitalized unless it is a 
word that is normally capitalized.  For
example, the teacher tenure act, MCL 38.71 
et seq., has no official title, nor has the nofault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq.
c) Multiple titles.  An act may be referred to by 
an unofficial title even though it has an 
official title.
Worker's Disability Compensation 
Act/workers' compensation act
d) Sponsors.  Generally omit the names of an 
act's sponsors in an official act.
The R. Hood-McNeely-Geake 
Malpractice Arbitration Act of 
1975 should be referred to as 
the Malpractice Arbitration Act; 
the 
Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, 
as the Civil Rights Act or the 
Michigan 
Civil Rights Act where an 
opinion also refers to the 
federal Civil Rights Act.
b. Federal.  Cite the title and section numbers of the United 
States Code without punctuation or section symbol: 11 
USC 29, not 11 USC § 29.  The official United States Code 
(USC), the United States Code Annotated (USCA), and 
the United States Code Service (USCS) all use the same 
numbering system; therefore, cite the official version 
(USC).  Citation of the Statutes at Large is unnecessary 
except where there is no corresponding USC citation or 
where the particular USC title has not been enacted into 
positive law and the wording of USC is materially different 
from that of the Statutes at Large.  Federal session laws 
are to be cited:
PL 96-123, § 109, 93 Stat 926.
c. Other states.  Cite in the manner usually followed in the 
jurisdiction, preferably in the official reports, consistent 
with manual form.  The jurisdiction must appear clearly in 
or with the citation.  Consult the Bluebook for titles.
Examples:
Ariz Rev Stat 13-4032, not ARS 13-4032.
NH Rev Stat Ann 651:57, not NHRSA 651:57.
The year of compilation should not be included unless the 
reference is not to a statute currently in force.
3. Court rules.
a. Michigan Court Rules of 1985.  
Cite as: MCR and the rule number.  (MCR 2.625.)  
b. Michigan Rules of Evidence.  
Cite as: MRE and the rule number. (MRE 801.)
c. Former court rules.
1) General Court Rules of 1963:  GCR 1963, 105.4.
2) Court Rules of 1945: Court Rule No 8, § 7 (1945).
3) Earlier court rules:  Cite analogously to the Court 
Rules of 1945.
4) Former District Court Rules:  DCR and the rule 
number.
5) Former Probate Court Rules:  PCR and the rule 
number.
6) Former Juvenile Court Rules:  JCR 1969, and the 
rule number.
d. Local Court Rules. 
[Jurisdiction] LCR and the rule number. (30th Circuit LCR 
2.119.)
e. Proposed court rules. 
Proposed MCR and the rule number.
f. Rules of Professional Conduct. 
MRPC 1.0.
g. Code of Judicial Conduct. 
Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1.
h. State Bar Rules. 
SBR 6, § 3.
i. Rules of the Board of Law Examiners. 
BLE 5.
j. Federal rules.
1) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: FR Civ P 52(a).
2) Federal  Rules  of  Criminal  Procedure: FR Crim P 
11.
3) Federal Rules of Evidence: FRE 803(24
k. Other jurisdictions.  Cite in the same manner as cited by 
the official reporter of the court, but consistent with 
manual form.
4. Administrative orders. 
Administrative Order No. 1993-1.  Subsequent  extensive
references may be shortened: AO 1993-1.
5. Jury instructions.
a. Criminal Jury Instructions: CJI2d 1.1.
b. Michigan Model Civil Jury Instructions: M Civ JI 3.02.
6. Administrative rules.
a. Mich Admin Code, R 408.41863.
b. If the rule has been amended or superseded, cite the 
appropriate Annual Supplement where available: 1983 
Annual Admin Code Supp, R 408.41863, or a more recent 
revision in the  Michigan Register: 1985 Mich  Reg 7, R 
408.30495c.
(N.B.:  Revisions appear monthly in the  Michigan 
Register and are cumulated annually in Annual 
Admin Code Supp.  E.g., regulations published in 
1985 Mich  Reg, vols. 1-12, are later reprinted in 
1985 Annual Admin Code Supp.)
Subsequent references may be shortened: Rule 
408.41863.
2003 PA 53 amended §§ 55 and 59 of the Administrative 
Procedures Act, MCL 24.255 and 24.259, effective July 
14, 2003, to provide that the official Michigan 
Administrative Code is what is published and annually 
supplemented on the Office of Regulatory Reinvention
website at <http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,1607,7-154-
10576_35738---,00.html>. 
C. Miscellaneous Citations
1. Attorney General opinions.  
Cite as:
1 OAG, 1956, No 3,010, p 407 (August 26, 1957).
OAG, 1947-1948, No 146, p 217 (March 7, 1947).
2. Municipal charters and ordinances.
a. Charters.  Cite the name of the municipality, the charter, 
and sufficient data to identify the particular section of 
interest uniquely, but not redundantly.  For example, if all 
the sections of chapter 6 of a charter are numbered as 
6.1, 6.2, etc., and sections in no other chapter are so 
numbered, 6.2 is sufficient and ch 6 should not be added 
to the citation.
Examples:
Detroit Charter, tit VI, ch VII, § 11.
Lansing Charter, § 5-207.
b. Ordinances.
1) Codified Ordinances.  Cite the name of the 
municipality, the ordinance code, and sufficient 
data to identify the particular section of interest 
uniquely, but not redundantly.
Example:
Detroit Ordinance, § 38-5-7.
2) Uncodified Ordinances.  Cite the name of the 
municipality and the ordinance number and 
section; the date is unnecessary for ordinances 
currently in force, but should be added in 
parentheses when necessary to distinguish from 
other versions.
Example:
Saginaw Ordinance D-511, § 203.
3. Administrative decisions.  
Cite published cases as follows:
A v B, 1978 MERC Lab Op 328.
(Employment Relations Commission)
A v B, 95 LRRM 1274 (1977).
(Labor Relations Reference Manual)
A v B, 1 MTTR 95 (Docket No. 3799, May 15, 
1975).
(Tax Tribunal Reports)
A v B, 1979 WCABO 2617.
(Workers' Compensation Appeal Board Opinions)
A v B, 1989 Mich ACO 1.
(Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission 
Opinions)
Cite other reports by analogy.
4. Constitutional Convention.  
2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, p 2038.
5. Legislative materials.
a. Bills.
HB 4015.
SB 481.
b. Journals.
1) Bound volumes.  Cite the year of the session and 
the page number:
1965 Journal of the House 77-78.
1983 Journal of the Senate 2280.
2) Advance sheets.  Cite, in addition, the pamphlet 
number and the date of issue:
1986 Journal of the House 76 (No. 6, 
January 22, 1986).
1986 Journal of the Senate 449 (No. 26,
March 6, 1986).
c. Analyses.
House Legislative Analysis, HB 6037, September 29, 
1980.
6. Executive orders. 
Cite in full:
Executive Order No. 1991-1.
Short forms: order 1991-1 or EO 1991-1.
7. Legal treatises and texts.
a. Examples:
3 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice (2d ed), 
Standard 18-4.1, commentary, p 18-240
78 ALR2d 218, § 2, pp 220-221
2 Am Jur 2d, Administrative Law, § 698, p 
597
Anno:  Fraud or undue influence in 
conveyance from child to  parent, 11 ALR 
735, 746
3 Callaghan's Michigan Pleading & Practice 
(2d ed), § 16.23, p 564
26 CJS, Declaratory Judgment, § 108, p 214
1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (2d ed), 
p 10
2 Couch, Insurance, 2d (rev ed), § 15:57, pp 
298-302
1 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & 
Procedure (2d ed), § 312, p 374
Lewis, Trusts (13th ed), p 91
2 Martin, Dean & Webster, Michigan Court Rules 
Practice, p 334
McCormick, Evidence (3d ed), § 72, p 171
12 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed, 
1976 Cum Supp), § 32.133, p 141
12 Michigan Law & Practice, Fraud, § 10, pp 
409-410
Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 4, p 21
Restatement Contracts, 2d (Tentative Draft 
No 8, 1973), § 267, pp 77-78
2 Restatement Torts, 2d, Appendix (1966), § 
344, p 237
3 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 520, p 41
3 Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction (4th 
ed), § 62.01, p 113
2 Weinstein & Berger, Evidence, ¶ 412[01], 
pp 412-10, 412-11
6 Wigmore, Evidence (Chadbourn rev), § 
1747, p 195
b. Subsequent citation:  Once an authority has been cited in 
full, a short-form citation may be used where it will not 
result in confusion.  E.g.:
Weinstein, ¶ 411
Wigmore, § 1745
Cooley, p 10
Restatement, § 340
Note, however, where a citation of the Restatement of 
Contracts intervenes after a citation of the Restatement 
of Torts, simply providing "Restatement, § 340," will not 
suffice because it could refer to either.
8. United States Law Week.
Use only where an official or regional reporter is unavailable.
Comm'r of Internal Revenue v Kowalski, 
____ US ____; ____ S Ct ____; ____ L Ed 
2d ____; 46 USLW 4015 (November 29, 
1977).
Pechter v Lyons, ____ F Supp ____; 46 
USLW 2251 (SD NY, November 8, 1977).
9. LEXIS/WESTLAW.
Use only where an official or regional reporter is unavailable.
A v B, ____ [Official Reporter] ____; ____ 
[Unofficial Reporter(s)] ____; [year] 
LEXIS/WL [library]     [page].
10. Nonlegal books.  
Cite the author, editor, or issuing institution, title in italics, and, 
in parentheses, the place of publication, colon, publisher, edition 
number, and year of publication, followed by, if appropriate, 
sufficient data to identify the matter of interest, such as the 
chapter and page number.
Examples:
Greenfield & Sternbach, eds,  Handbook of 
Psychophysiology (New York: Holt, Rinehart 
& Winston, Inc, 1972), ch 19, p 749
Yung-Ping Chen & The Technical Committee 
on Income,  Income: Background & Issues
(Washington, DC: White House Conference 
on Aging, 1971)
United States Bureau of the Census, Census 
of Population:  1970, Detailed 
Characteristics; Final Report PC(1)- D24 
Michigan (Washington, DC:  United States 
Government Printing Office, 1972)
Bernstein, The Careful Writer (New York: 
Atheneum, 1973)
Follett,  Modern American Usage (New York: 
Hill & Wang, 1966)
Evans,  A Dictionary of Contemporary 
American Usage (New York: Random House, 
1957)
11. Dictionaries.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed) (no italics)
Webster's Third New International Dictionary,
Unabridged Edition (1966)
The Random House Dictionary of the English
Language:  Unabridged Edition
Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1991)
The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language (1973)
12. Law review material.
a. Include the volume number, abbreviated name of the law 
review or journal, page number or numbers, and, in 
parentheses, the year.
b. Articles with named authors should be cited beginning 
with the surname of the author (unless more is needed 
for certainty) and the title in italics.
c. A commentary or note should be cited as commentary or 
note, comma, and italicized title.  (N.B.: The name of the 
author should not be included.)
d. Matter in the nature of a regular department of a 
periodical having a number of contributors or anonymous 
contributors should be cited by the usual title, e.g., 
Current Law Notes, Recent Legislation, Recent 
Developments, and not italicized.
Examples:
Comment,  Prosecutorial discretion in 
the duplicative statutes  setting, 42 U 
Colo L R 455 (1971)
Conyers,  The politics of revenue 
sharing, 52 J Urban L 61 (1974)
Crawford,  Local zoning control of 
billboards
___
A guide for Michigan 
Attorneys, 1989 Det Col L R 1473
Kimble,  Protecting your writing from 
law practice, 66 Mich B J 912 (1987)
Kutak & Gottschalk,  In search of a 
rational sentence: A return to the 
concept of appellate review, 53 Neb L 
R 463 (1974)
Moley,  The use of the information in 
criminal cases, 17 ABA J 292 (1931)
Project, Seventeenth annual review of 
criminal procedure, 76 Geo L J 521, 
925 (1988)
Richardson, 1983 Annual Survey of 
Michigan Law,  Natural resources, real 
property and trusts, 30 Wayne L R 
763, 769-772
13. Internet material.
Materials found only on an Internet website should include an 
author (if available), a title, an Internet address, and the date 
on which the site was accessed.
Examples:
James Wyman, Florida Law Online 
<http://www.gate.net/~wyman/flo.html> 
(accessed August 1, 1999).
Federal Judicial Center, Federal Judicial 
Center Publications
<http://www.fjc.gov/pubs.html> (accessed 
July 10, 1999).
14. Michigan Child Support Formula Manual.
Cite as [year] MCSF [section number].  Example: 2001 MCSF 
208(A).
II. Material Quoted in Opinions
Generally, material quoted in opinions should be reproduced exactly as it 
appears in the original source.
Examples:
MCL 769.26 provides:
No judgment or verdict shall be set aside or 
reversed or a new trial be granted by any court of 
this state in any criminal case, on the ground of 
misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission 
or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any 
matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the 
opinion of the court, after an examination of the 
entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that the 
error complained of resulted in a miscarriage of 
justice.  [Emphasis added.]
As this Court has noted,
[t]he measure of control exercised in connection with 
the prevention and detection of crime and 
prosecution and punishment of criminals is set forth 
in the statutes of the State pertaining thereto, 
particularly the penal code and the code of criminal 
procedure.  The powers of the courts with reference 
to such matters are derived from the statutes. 
[People v Piasecki, 333 Mich 122, 143; 52 NW2d 626 
(1952).]
A. Case Law.
1. Where available,  official sources should be quoted.  (N.B.: the official 
opinions of the Michigan Supreme Court are published in the Michigan 
Reports [Mich], not the North Western Reporter or Michigan Reporter
[NW2d]; the official opinions of the United States Supreme Court are 
published in the  United States Reports [US], not the  Supreme Court 
Reporter [S Ct], the  United States Supreme Court Reports,  Lawyers 
Edition [L Ed, L Ed 2d], or United States Law Week [USLW].)
2. Published opinions of Michigan, federal, or foreign courts should be 
quoted exactly, except that a parallel citation or year of decision must 
be added with brackets if missing from the quoted material.
Examples:
In 378 Mich 195, the following citation appears:
Brown v. City of Highland Park (1948), 320 Mich 
108.
If the paragraph containing the citation is quoted in a current opinion, 
it should appear as:
Brown v.  City of Highland Park (1948),  320 Mich 
108 [30 NW2d 798].  (N.B.: A parallel citation has 
been added.)
In 199 Mich 316, "Jones v.  Berkey, 181 Mich. 472 (148 N.W. 375)," 
should be quoted:
"Jones v. Berkey, 181 Mich. 472 (148 N.W. 375) [1914]."  
B. Statutes and Administrative Rules.
These should be quoted exactly as they appear in printed form, not off
a website.  If it appears that the text of a statute or rule contains an 
error, "[sic]" should be inserted in the text immediately following the 
error.
C. Punctuation in Quoted Material.
1. Colons and semicolons.  Colons and semicolons that are not part of the 
original quoted material are placed outside quotation marks.
2. Question marks and exclamation points.  Placement of question marks 
and exclamation points depends on their relation to the material 
quoted.  The mark is placed inside quotation marks where it applies 
only to the material quoted, and outside where it applies to the entire 
sentence.
Examples:
The witness responded, "I saw him do it!"
Why did you respond, "I saw him do it"?
3. Quotation marks.  A quotation within a quotation is enclosed in single 
quotation marks.
E.g., "Unless the legislation creates a 'classification 
scheme,' or 'impinges upon the exercise of a fundamental 
right,' it is 'accorded a presumption of constitutionality, 
and is reviewed by applying a rational basis standard.'"  
Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 361-362; 
550 NW2d 215 (1996), quoting  Doe v Dep't of Social 
Services, 439 Mich 650, 662; 487 NW2d 166 (1992).
D. Deletions in Quoted Materials (Ellipses).
1. Within a sentence.  To delete material within a sentence, insert three 
periods (ellipses) and four spaces:
"Insanity . . . is an extreme of mental illness."
(Note:  Ellipses without spaces are incorrect.  
"Insanity...is an     extreme....")
2. At end of a sentence.  To delete material at the end of a sentence, 
insert three periods and four spaces before the terminal punctuation:
"To put it alternatively, the statutes provide that all 
insane people are mentally ill . . . ."
"The Court: Well, what was this thing . . . ?"
3. Following a sentence/between sentences.  To delete material  after a 
complete sentence or between complete sentences, insert three 
periods and three spaces after the terminal punctuation:
Insanity by definition is an extreme of mental illness. . 
 To put it alternatively, the statutes provide that all . .
insane people are mentally ill but not all mentally ill 
people are insane.
Insanity by definition is an extreme of mental illness. . 
 T]he law provides that criminal responsibility does] . .
not attach.
Note that the "t" in the final sentence, lower case in the original, is 
capitalized in brackets [T] because the material remaining after 
deletion can be read as a complete sentence.
4. At the middle of a sentence.  No ellipses are required where a quotation 
begins in the middle of a sentence and:
a) the fragment quoted completes an original sentence and begins with 
a lower case letter:
E.g.:When a person is found to be insane, "the law 
provides that criminal responsibility does not 
attach."
b) a capital letter is inserted in brackets:
E.g.: The lead opinion in  Fultz noted, "[A]ll insane 
people are mentally ill but not all mentally ill people 
are insane."
5. Internal punctuation in original.  Internal punctuation should be retained 
only where required for clarity:
"When a person's mental illness reaches that 
extreme, . . . criminal responsibility does not 
attach."  (The comma in the original is retained.)
but:
"Defendant . . . admitted doing the particular act, 
but also stated that he was insane."  (Punctuation 
in the deleted material is not retained.)
6. At the end of a paragraph.  Where material is deleted at the end of a 
paragraph and the next paragraph immediately follows, insert three 
periods and three spaces after the terminal punctuation of the first 
paragraph:
Furthermore, defendant's account of what 
transpired was clearly in accord with the psychiatric 
evaluation in that defendant admitted committing 
the act but stated that he could not help what he 
was doing. . . .
The Court: Well, what was this thing that came 
over you?
7. Between paragraphs.  Where one or more paragraphs are deleted 
between quoted paragraphs, insert three asterisks (centered) and two 
blank lines between the paragraphs quoted:
So, just as a finding of no insanity is essential for 
an adjudication of guilt by trial, we hold such a 
finding to be equally essential for a plea of guilty.  
Such a finding was not made in the instant case 
and the plea for that reason is invalid.
*  *  *
Lastly, as we find the plea to be invalid for the 
aforestated reasons, it is unnecessary to address 
the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
E. Italics.
Italics should be used only in the following instances:
1. case names: People v Smith,
2. supra, id., infra, ante, post, et seq.,
3. words the author wishes to emphasize,
4. where italics are used in the material quoted,
5. unfamiliar foreign words and phrases or longer Latin "legal" phrases. 
E.g.:
Italicize:
expressio unius est exclusio alterius and  en ventre sa 
mere, etc.,
but not:
de novo, arguendo, sua sponte, etc.
(Check Black's Law Dictionary [8th ed] for guidance.)
Italicize:
Nec flectitur,  nec mutant;  hôtel de ville;  die 
Weltanschauung, etc.,
but not:
vis-à-vis; quid pro quo; der Bundestag; Arc de Triomphe; 
etc. (Check the Random House Dictionary for guidance.)
6. In titles of nonlegal books, law review articles, and ALR annotations.
7. The following should not be italicized:
abbreviations (e.g., i.e., viz., N.B., etc.);
signals (see, see also, compare . . . with);
later history of cases (cert den, lv den, aff'd);
8. When quoting from trial or other transcripts italicize:
a) "Q." and "A."  (Do not use: "Q:" or "A:")
Examples:
"Q. Were you on Oakland Avenue on the date in 
question?
"A. No, sir."
b) Names or titles of the speakers:
The Court:
Mr. Smith (attorney for the defense):
The Defendant:
F. Quoting a Footnote.  
1. If material quoted contains a footnote that is to be included in the 
quotation, use the same footnote numbering as the original and add 
the footnote at the end of the block of quoted material, separated from 
the main quotation by lines from margin to margin above  and below 
the footnote.  For clarity, where possible, put the citation in the 
opinion text before beginning the block quotation.
Example:
A discussion of presumptions and their effect upon 
the burden of producing evidence appears in  In re 
Wood Estate, 374 Mich 278, 289; 132 NW2d 35; 54 
ALR3d 1 (1965):
"The immediate legal effect of a presumption is 
procedural
___
it shifts the burden of going forward 
with the evidence relating to the presumed fact.
5
Once there is a presumption that fact C is true, the 
opposing party must produce evidence tending to 
disprove either facts A and B or presumed fact C; if 
he fails to do so, he risks jury instruction that they 
must presume fact C to have been established.
___________________________________________________________
______________
"
5
Baker v Delano, 191 Mich 204, 208 [157 NW 427 
(1916)], citing 1 Elliott on Evidence, § 91: ' "The 
office or effect of a true presumption is to cast upon 
the party against whom it works  the duty of going 
forward with evidence." ' "
_________________________________________________________
_______________
The thrust of the Wood case was to change the law 
in this state concerning the effect that a 
presumption was  after rebuttal evidence has  been 
introduced.
2. Where footnotes appear in the original source, but are not material to 
the purpose for which the text is quoted, footnote numbers in the text 
should be deleted without ellipses.  Do not add "(footnotes deleted)" at 
the end of the quotation!
G. Placement of Citation.
A citation indicating the source of a block quotation generally should be 
supplied in the text preceding the quotation.
Example:
The Equal Protection Clause, US Const, Am XIV, § 5, 
provides:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate 
legislation, the provisions of this article.
A citation may follow the quotation in the block, immediately after the quoted 
material, without additional separation, followed by a period and enclosed in 
brackets.
The no-fault insurance act provides, in part:
An agreement for assignment of a right to benefits 
payable in the future is void.  [MCL 500.3143.]
H. Parentheses and Brackets.
1. Use Parentheses ( ):
a) To set off short, supplementary, parenthetic, or explanatory 
material when the interruption is more marked than that usually 
indicated by commas and when the inclusion of such material 
does not essentially alter the meaning of the sentence.
The work (he was preeminently fitted for it) 
absorbed his attention for weeks.
The cost of living (see chart II) has risen slowly but 
surely.
b) To enclose figures or letters used in enumerations.
The immediate results were these:  (1) a cornering 
of the market; (2) a decrease in available material; 
(3) an advance in prices.
(N.B.: Parentheses postpone punctuation.  No punctuation 
immediately precedes parentheses, except when a sentence ends with 
a period and the next sentence is in parentheses.)
2. Use brackets [ ]:
a) To enclose explanatory remarks, extraneous data, editorial 
interpolations, or additional citations within quoted passages or 
a citation following a block quotation where no quotation marks 
are used:
Example:
There is no doubt that the April 23, 1973 finding 
was that defendant was guilty of civil contempt.  
Judge O'Hair specifically told the defendant that 
she would be jailed until she purged herself.  She 
therefore was able to "carry the 'keys of [the] 
prison in [her] own pocket' [and] the action is 
essentially civil."  People v Goodman, 17 Mich App 
175, 177; 169 NW2d 120 (1969).
If one substitutes "warehouse owner, lessee or 
operator" for "consignee," then the exclusion would 
read "no portion of any premises owned or leased 
or operated by a [warehouse owner, lessee or 
operator] shall be deemed to be a public 
warehouse." The expansive meaning sought by the 
city does not work unless there can be a consignor 
without a consignee.
The proscription of "unreasonable searches and 
seizures" and the warrant requirement
"must be read in light of 'the history that gave rise 
to the words'
___
a history of 'abuses so deeply felt 
by the Colonies as to be one of the potent causes 
of the Revolution . . . .' [United States v
Rabinowitz], 339 US [56], 69 [70 S Ct 430; 94 L 
Ed 653 (1950)].  The amendment was in large part 
a reaction to the general warrants and warrantless 
searches that had so alienated the colonists and 
had helped speed the movement for 
independence."
b) To indicate a change in capitalization to conform to the sense of the 
context in quoted source material.
Example:
[W]e cannot agree that the Fourth Amendment 
interests at stake in these [administrative] 
inspection cases are merely "peripheral."  It is 
surely anomalous to say that the individual and his 
private property are fully protected by the Fourth 
Amendment only when the individual is suspected 
of criminal behavior.
c) To indicate a misspelled or misused word in the text accompanied 
by the word "sic."
Example:
Any person who shall commit the offense of 
larceny, by steeling [sic], shall be guilty of a felony 
. . . .
d) To function as parentheses within parentheses.
Example:
The statute (MCL 418.551[2]) provides . . . .
e) Use empty brackets [ ] to indicate deletion of a letter or letters 
where, for example, the plural in quoted material is to be 
rendered in the singular.
Example:
"actions" becomes "action[ ]."
APPENDIX A.  STATE ABBREVIATION
Ala                     Ky           ND
Alas                   La           Ohio
Ariz                   Me           Okla
Ark                    Md           Or
Cal                     Mass        Pa
Col                     Mich        RI
Conn                 Minn        SC
Del                     Miss         SD
DC                      Mo            Tenn
Fla                      Mont        Tex
Ga                       Neb          Utah
Hawaii              Nev           Vt
Idaho                NH             Va
Ill                        NJ              Wash
Ind                     NM             W Va
Iowa                  NY              Wis
Kan                    NC                Wy

APPENDIX B.  COURTS NO LONGER PUBLISHING OFFICIAL REPORTS
State                                          Last Volume                                   Last Year
Alabama                                          295                                                    1976
Alabama Appeals                           57                                                    1976
Alaska                                                  17                                                    1958
Arizona Appeals                             27                                                     1976
Colorado                                          200                                                    1980
Colorado Appeals                           44                                                     1980
Delaware                                             59                                                     1966
Delaware Chancery                         43                                                     1966
Florida                                                160                                                    1948
Indiana                                               275                                                    1981
Indiana Appeals                             182                                                      1981
Iowa                                                     261                                                      1968
Kentucky                                            314                                                      1951
Louisiana                                            263                                                     1972
Louisiana Appeals                             19                                                      1932            
Maine                                                     161                                                     1965
Minnesota                                            312                                                     1977
Mississippi                                           254                                                     1966
Missouri                                                365                                                     1956
Missouri Appeals                               241                                                     1955
North Dakota                                         79                                                     1953
Oklahoma                                              208                                                     1953
Oklahoma Criminal Appeals             97                                                    1953
Rhode Island                                         122                                                    1980
South Dakota                                           90                                                    1976
Tennessee                                               225                                                    1971
Tennessee Appeals                                63                                                    1971
Tennessee Civil Appeals                        8                                                     1918
Texas                                                         163                                                     1962
Texas Criminal Appeals                     172                                                     1963
Texas Civil Appeals                                63                                                      1911
Utah 30 Utah                                                2d                                                   1974
Wyoming                                                     80                                                      1959

                                   
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2006-4
Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the 28th
Circuit Court and the 
84th District Court of Wexford County
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 the following concurrent jurisdiction plan 
effective August 1, 2006:
The 28th
Circuit Court and the 84th District Court
The plan shall remain on file with the state court administrator.
Amendments of 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. 2006-5
Adoption of the Michigan Child Support Formula as Juvenile Court 
Reimbursement Guideline
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes 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 Court adopts the 
Michigan Child Support Formula Schedules Supplement from the Michigan Child 
Support Formula Manual to replace the July 30, 1990, Schedule of Payments in the 
Guideline for Court Ordered Reimbursement, effective July 1, 2006.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2006-6
Prohibition on “Bundling” Cases
On order of the Court, the need for immediate action having been found, the 
following Administrative Order is adopted, effective immediately.  Public comments 
on this administrative order, however, may be submitted to the Supreme Court 
Clerk in writing or electronically until December 1, 2006, at:  P.O. Box 30052, 
Lansing, MI  48909, or MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov.  When filing a comment, please 
refer to ADM File No. 2003-47.  Your comments will be posted, along with the 
comments of others, at 
www.courts.mi.gov/supremecourt/resources/administrative/index.htm. 
The Court has determined that trial courts should be precluded from “bundling” 
asbestos-related cases for settlement or trial.  It is the opinion of the Court that 
each case should be decided on its own merits, and not in conjunction with other 
cases.  Thus, no asbestos-related disease personal injury action shall be joined with 
any other such case for settlement or for any other purpose, with the exception of 
discovery.  This order in no way precludes or diminishes the ability of a court to 
consolidate asbestos-related disease personal injury actions for discovery purposes 
only.  
For purposes of this Administrative Order, “asbestos-related disease personal injury 
actions” include all cases in which it is alleged that a party has suffered personal 
injury caused by exposure to asbestos, regardless of the theory of recovery.
[Effective August 9, 2006]
[Retained June 19, 2007]

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2006-7
Interactive Video Proceedings (Family Division of Circuit Court and Probate 
Court)
Rescinded effective May 1, 2007.  See Administrative Order 2007-1.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No. 2006-8
Deliberative Privilege and Case Discussions in the Supreme Court
The following administrative order, supplemental to the provisions of Administrative 
Order No. 1997-10, is effective immediately.
All correspondence, memoranda and discussions regarding cases or controversies 
are confidential.  This obligation to honor confidentiality does not expire when a 
case is decided.  The only exception to this obligation is that a Justice may disclose 
any unethical, improper or criminal conduct to the JTC or proper authority.
[Effective December 6, 2006]
Administrative Order No. 2006-9
Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the 28th
Circuit Court, the 84th
District Court, and the Probate Court of Missaukee County

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 the adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction 
plan effective April 1, 2007:
The 28th
Circuit Court, the 84thDistrict Court, and the Probate Court of Missaukee 
County 
The plan 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 2007-1
Expanded Use of Interactive Video Technology
By order entered February 14, 2007, this Court has adopted new rules authorizing 
the use of interactive video technology (IVT) for specified hearings in delinquency 
proceedings, child protective proceedings, and probate matters.  In addition to the 
use of IVT specifically authorized under new Rules 3.904 and 5.738a of the 
Michigan Court Rules, this Court encourages courts in appropriate circumstances to 
expand the use of IVT in those proceedings and matters to hearings not 
enumerated in the new rules by seeking permission from the State Court 
Administrative Office.  The goal of the expanded use of IVT is to promote efficiency 
for the court and accessibility for the parties while ensuring that each party’s rights 
are not compromised.
Effective May 1, 2007, each court seeking to expand its use of IVT beyond the uses 
set forth in new MCR 3.904 and 5.738a must submit a local administrative order for 
approval by the State Court Administrator, pursuant to MCR 8.112(B), describing 
the administrative procedures for each type of hearing for which IVT will be used.
Upon a court’s filing of a local administrative order, the State Court Administrative 
Office shall either approve the order or return the order to the chief judge of the 
circuit court or the probate court for amendment in accordance with requirements 
and guidelines provided by the State Court Administrative Office.
The State Court Administrative Office shall assist courts in implementing the 
expanded use of IVT, and shall report to this Court regarding its assessment of any 
expanded IVT programs.  Those courts approved for an expanded program of IVT 
use shall provide statistics and otherwise cooperate with the State Court 
Administrative Office in monitoring the expanded-use programs.
Third Amended Administrative Order No. 2007-2
Expedited Summary Disposition Docket in the Court of Appeals
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2004-5, this Court adopted an expedited 
summary disposition docket in the Court of Appeals to take effect on January 1, 
2005, and to expire on December 31, 2006.  On December 21, 2005, Amended 
Administrative Order No. 2004-5 was adopted to take effect January 1, 2006, and 
to expire December 31, 2007.  At the request of Chief Judge William C. Whitbeck, 
we now order that the expedited summary disposition docket be suspended 
indefinitely effective May 7, 2007.
The Court of Appeals has indicated that as of May 7, 2007, all cases currently on 
the expedited summary disposition track will no longer be considered on an 
expedited basis and will proceed on the standard track.  If any party believes this 
shift would create a hardship or a significant inequity, a party may file a motion for 
appropriate relief in conformity with MCR 7.211.  Parties to cases that were filed 
under the expedited summary disposition docket need not file a docketing 
statement, as is required for cases that were not filed under the expedited 
summary disposition docket.  If transcripts in an expedited summary disposition 
case have been ordered and are completed by the court reporter within the time 
limits established in Administrative Order No. 2004-5, the court reporter is entitled 
to charge the premium rate per page. 
[Entered May 2, 2007]

Administrative Order 2007-3
[As amended October 20, 2011, incorporating the relevant content of 
Administrative Order 2009-1.  AO 2009-1 is rescinded]
E-filing pilot project in Oakland County
On order of the Court, the 6
th
Circuit Court is authorized to implement an 
Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project.  The pilot project is established to study
the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper 
filings.  The pilot project shall begin August 1, 2007, or as soon thereafter as is 
possible, and shall remain in effect until July 30, 2013, or further order of this 
Court.  The 6th
Circuit Court is aware that rules regarding electronic filing have been 
published for comment by this Court.  If this Court adopts electronic-filing rules 
during the pendency of the 6th
Circuit Court Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project, the 6th
Circuit Court will, within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, comply 
with the requirements of those rules.  
The 6th
Circuit Court will track the participation and effectiveness of this pilot 
program and shall report to and provide information as requested by the State 
Court Administrative Office.  
1. Construction
The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing 
court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination 
of the actions involved in the pilot program.  The Sixth Circuit Court may exercise 
its discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not 
to affect the substantial rights of the parties.  Except for matters related to 
electronically filing documents during the pilot program, the Michigan Rules of Court 
govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot.  
2. Definitions
(a) “Clerk” means the Oakland County Clerk.
(b)“E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, 
order, judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically 
pursuant to the pilot program.  
(c) “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the Sixth 
Judicial Circuit Court.
(d)“MCR” means the Michigan Rules of Court.  
(e) “Pilot program” means the initiative by the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, 
the Oakland County Clerk, and the Oakland County Department of 
Information Technology in conjunction with Wiznet, Inc., and under 
the supervision of the State Court Administrative Office.  This e-filing 
application facilitates the electronic filing of pleadings, motions, briefs, 
responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and other documents.  All 
state courts in Michigan are envisioned as eventually permitting efiling (with appropriate modifications and improvements).  The 
Oakland County pilot program will begin testing with four circuit judges 
with “C” or “N” type civil cases.  The court plans to expand the pilot 
program to all circuit judges who wish to participate
(f) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other 
malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing 
or sending or receiving service of an e-filing.
3. Participation in the Pilot Program
(a) Participation in the pilot program shall be mandatory in all pending 
“A,” “C,” “P” or “N” type cases assigned to participating circuit judges.  
At the discretion of the judge, participation may also include 
postdisposition proceedings in qualifying case types assigned to 
participating judges.
Until April 30, 2012, court users will have the discretion to submit the 
initiating documents in “A,” “C,” “P” and “N” type cases and any fees 
associated with the documents either traditionally or electronically.  
Beginning May 1, 2012, submission of initiating documents shall be 
made electronically, subject to the exception created at subsection 
3.3(b) below.  The court shall provide on campus computer facilities at 
the county clerk’s office and the law library to enable a party or 
attorney without a computer to e-file on campus.
(b)This is a mandatory e-filing project.  It is presumed that all documents 
will be filed electronically.  However, the Court recognizes that 
circumstances may arise that will prevent one from e-filing.  To ensure 
that all parties retain access to the courts, parties that demonstrate 
good cause will be permitted to file their documents with the clerk, 
who will then file the documents electronically.  Among the factors that 
the Sixth Circuit Court will consider in determining whether good cause 
exists to excuse a party from mandatory e-filing are a party’s access 
to the Internet and indigency.  A self-represented party is not excused 
from the project merely because the individual does not have counsel.  
However, upon submission of proof of incarceration, a self-represented 
party shall be exempted from e-filing during the period of the 
individual’s incarceration.  Application for a waiver of e-filing at the 
time of case initiation shall be made to the chief judge or the chief 
judge’s designate.
 4.   E-filings Submission, Acceptance, and Time of Service with the Court; 
Signature
(a) In an effort to facilitate uniform service within the scope of this project, 
the Sixth Circuit Court strongly recommends electronic service.  However, 
service of process for initiating documents shall be made pursuant to MCR 
2.105.  After the initial process has been served and the defendant has 
registered as a user with the Tyler (Wiznet) e-filing system for the case, 
amendments to the initiating documents may be served electronically 
subject to the limitations or restrictions otherwise imposed in this order.
(b) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and 
the pilot program’s technical requirements.  The clerk may, in accordance 
with MCR 8.119(C) reject documents submitted for filing that do not 
comply with MCR 2.113(C)(1), are not accompanied by the proper fees, 
clearly violate Administrative Order No. 2006-2, do not conform to the 
technical requirements of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in 
violation of a statute, an MCR, an LAO, or the program rules.
(c) E-filings may be submitted to the court at any time, but shall only be 
reviewed and accepted for filing by the Oakland County Clerk’s Office 
during the normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.  E-filings 
submitted after business hours shall be deemed filed on the business day 
the e-filing is accepted (usually the next business day).  The clerk shall 
process electronic submissions on a first-in, first-out basis.  
(d) E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand delivered to the court for 
all purposes under statute, the MCR, and the LAO. 
(e) A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served 
under this rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court 
clerk, attorney, party, or declarant.  
(i)Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form:  /s/ 
John L. Smith.  
(ii) A document that requires a signature under the penalty of 
perjury is deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the 
declarant has signed a printed form of the document.  
(iii) An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public 
is deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the 
notary public has signed a printed form of the document.  
(f) The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a 
verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g., an affidavit, notarization, or 
bill of costs) must be maintained by the filing attorney and made available 
upon reasonable request of the court, the signatory, or opposing party.
(g) Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the 
provisions of the pilot program.  The court and the clerk shall exchange 
the documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B).  
(h) By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer indicates 
compliance with these rules.
 5.  Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; Judge’s 
Copies; Hearings on Motions; Fees
(a)All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the applicable 
statute, the MCR and the LAO as if the e-filings were hand delivered.  
Where a praecipe is required by LCR 2.119(A), it must be e-filed along 
with the documents that require the praecipe, unless another courtapproved mechanism is approved and used by the filer.
(b)The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this pilot program 
satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy under MCR 2.119(A)(2).  
Upon request by the court, the filing party shall promptly provide a 
traditional judge’s copy to chambers. 
(c) Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be paid 
electronically through procedures established by the Oakland County 
Clerk’s Office at the same time and in the same amount as required by 
statute, court rule, or administrative order.  
 (i) Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees.
 Type of Filing                          Fee
 EFO (e-filing only)                 $5.00
 EFS (e-filing with service)  $8.00
 SO (service only)                    $5.00
 (ii)  Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 3% user 
fee.  
 6. Service
(a)All parties shall register with the court and opposing parties one e-mail 
address with the functionality required for the pilot program through 
Tyler Odyssey File and Serve.  All service shall originate from this 
registered e-mail address.  Additional e-mail addresses for other 
attorneys or staff persons associated with counsel for the party may 
be added as registered users.  Service shall be perfected upon a self
represented party or counsel and any additional registered users 
associated with counsel at the e-mail addresses registered with the 
Tyler (Wiznet) e-filing system.  Each individual bears the responsibility 
for the accuracy of the registered e-mail address.
(b)Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all e-filings 
must be served electronically to the e-mail addresses of all parties.  
The subject matter line for the transmittal of document served by email shall state: 
 “Service of e-filing in case [insert caption of case].” 
(c) The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail service,
 efilings may be served to the parties (but not the court) by facsimile or 
by traditional means.  For those choosing to accept facsimile service: 
(i) the parties shall provide the court and the opposing parties with one 
facsimile number with appropriate functionality, 
(ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service 
may be made, 
(iii) the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of delivery, 
and 
(iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use 
of facsimile communication equipment.  
(d)Proof of Service shall be submitted to the Sixth Circuit Court according 
to MCR 2.104 and these rules.
 7.  Format and Form of E-filing and Service
(a)A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction.
(b)All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements 
of the court’s vendor.  
(c) Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly 
designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment.  
(d)All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the 
parties in the same format and form as submitted to the court.
 8.  Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filed
 The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot program and must 
be filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO: 
(a)documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order), and
(b)documents for case evaluation proceedings.  
 9.  Official Court Record; Certified Copies
 (a) The official record, with the exception of documents filed under seal [see 
subsection 8(a) of this administrative order and MCR 8.119(F)] is the electronic 
version of all documents filed with the court.  An appellate record shall be 
certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1).
 (b) Certified or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the 
conventional manner by the Oakland County Clerk’s Office in compliance with the 
Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards.
 (c) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the  program does not continue as 
a pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to 
paper form in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d). Participating attorneys shall 
provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record.   
 (d) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program continues as a pilot 
project or in another format, the clerk shall provide for record retention and 
public access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the court and the 
court rules.
 10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments
 At the court’s discretion, the court may issue, file, and serve orders, judgments, 
and notices as e-filings.  Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the parties may 
agree to accept service from the court via facsimile pursuant to the procedures 
set forth in Rule 6(c).
 11. Technical Malfunctions
(a)A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment 
(such as Portable Document Format [PDF] conversion problems or 
inability to access the pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such as an 
inoperable e-mail address), or an apparent technical malfunction of the 
court’s pilot equipment, software, or server shall use reasonable efforts to 
timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall provide 
prompt notice to the court and the parties of any such malfunction. 
(b)If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, 
responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, 
the affected party may petition the Sixth Circuit Court for relief.  Such
petition shall contain an adequate proof of the technical malfunction and 
set forth good cause for failure to use nonelectronic means to timely file 
or serve a document.  The court shall liberally consider proof of the 
technical malfunction and use its discretion in determining whether such 
relief is warranted.
 12. Privacy Considerations
(a)With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal 
information shall apply:
 1. Social Security Numbers.  Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full 
social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings.  If an individual’s social 
security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that 
number may be used and the number specified in substantially the following 
format:  XXX-XX-1234.
 2. Names of Minor Children.  Unless named as a party, the identity of minor 
children shall not be included in e-filings.  If a nonparty minor child must be 
mentioned, only the initials of that child’s name may be used.
 3. Dates of Birth.  An individual’s full birthdate shall not be included in efilings.  If an individual’s date of birth must be referenced in an e-filing, only the 
year may be used and the date specified in substantially the following format:  
XX/XX/1998.
 4. Financial Account Numbers.  Full financial account numbers shall not be 
included in e-filings unless required by statute, court rule, or other authority.  If a 
financial account number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four 
digits of these numbers may be used and the number specified in substantially 
the following format: XXXXX1234.
 5. Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal Identification Card 
Numbers.  A person’s full driver’s license number and state-issued personal 
identification number shall not be included in e-filings.  If an individual’s driver’s 
license number or state-issued personal identification card number must be 
referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number should be used 
and the number specified in substantially the following format: X-XXX-XXX-XX1-
234.
 6. Home Addresses.  With the exception of a self-represented party, full home 
addresses shall not be included in e-filings.  If an individual’s home address must 
be referenced in an e-filing, only the city and state should be used.
(b)Parties wishing to file a complete personal data identifier listed above 
may:
 1. Pursuant to and in accordance with the MCR and the LAO, file a motion to 
file a traditional paper version of the document under seal.  The court, in granting
the motion to file the document under seal, may still require that an e-filing that 
does not reveal the complete personal data identifier be filed for the public files.
    or
 2. Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR and LAO, obtain a 
court order to file a traditional paper reference list under seal.  The reference list 
shall contain the complete personal data identifiers and the redacted identifiers 
used in the e-filing.  All references in the case to the redacted identifiers included 
in the reference list shall be construed to refer to the corresponding complete 
personal data identifiers.  The reference list must be filed under seal, and may be 
amended as of right.  
 (c) Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or 
confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered 
above and listed below:
 1. Medical records, treatment and diagnosis;
 2. Employment history;
 3. Individual financial information;
 4. Insurance information;
 5. Proprietary or trade secret information;
 6. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; 
and
 7. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity.
 13. Further, the Oakland Circuit Court shall file an annual report with the Court 
by January 1 of each year (or more frequently or on another date as specified by 
the Court) that outlines the following:
 a. Detailed financial data that shows the total amount of money collected in 
fees for documents filed and/or served under the pilot project to date, the 
original projections for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been 
met or exceeded.
 b. Detailed financial information regarding the distribution/retention of 
collected fees, including the amount paid to Wiznet per document and in total for 
the subject period and the amount retained by the court per document and in 
total for the period, and whether the monies retained by the court are in a 
separate account or commingled with other monies. 
 c. A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a 
statement of whether and when each cost will recur. 
 d. A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the court whether by reduced 
personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the court 
are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties. 
 e. Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and 
whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after the 
conclusion of the pilot program. 
 f. A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee 
collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods.
 14. Amendment
Procedural aspects of these rules may be amended upon the recommendation 
of the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by 
the State Court Administrator. Proposed substantive changes, including, for 
example, a proposed expansion of the program to permit additional case types 
and a proposed change in fees, must be submitted to the Supreme Court for 
approval.
 15. Expiration
 Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, 
requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating 
judges, shall continue until July 30, 2013.  

Administrative Order No. 2007-4
Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the 49th
Circuit Court, the 77th
District Court, and Probate District 18 of Mecosta and Osceola 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 the adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction 
plan, effective April 1, 2008:
The 49th Circuit Court, the 77th
District Court, and Probate District 18 of Mecosta  
and Osceola Counties
The plan 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. 2008-1
Pilot Project No. 1   17
th
Judicial Circuit Court  (Expedited Process in the 
Resolution of the Low Conflict Docket of the Family Division)
On order of the Court, the 17
th
Judicial Circuit Court is authorized to implement a 
domestic relations pilot project.  The pilot project will study the effectiveness of the 
use of pleadings that contain nonadversarial language, and the requirement that 
parents submit parenting time plans to encourage settlements and reduce 
postjudgment litigation.  
The pilot project shall begin April 1, 2008, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and 
shall remain in effect until July 30, 2009, or until further order of this Court.  
The 17th
Judicial Circuit Court will track the degree of participation and the overall 
effectiveness of this pilot project and shall report to and provide information as 
requested by the State Court Administrative Office.
1. Purpose of the Pilot Project.
The purpose of the pilot project is to study the effectiveness of the use of 
nonadversarial language in pleadings, judgments, and orders, and the effectiveness 
of a proposed provision for inclusion of parenting time plans, particularly in relation 
to the just, speedy, and economical determination of the actions involved in the 
pilot project and the reduction of postjudgment litigation.  Except for matters 
related to the form of pleadings and orders, requirements for parenting time plans, 
and the use of nonadversarial language during the pilot project, the Michigan Court 
Rules govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot project.
2. Construction and Participation.
(a) The 17th
Judicial Circuit Court shall determine a method by local administrative 
order that creates a pool of pilot-project cases and also a pool of control-group 
cases.  The local administrative order shall specify the cases to be included in the 
pilot project by one of the following methods:  the date an action is filed, a specific 
number of consecutive cases or actions filed, or by the assigned judge.  
(b) Participation also shall include postjudgment proceedings in qualifying cases 
that were included in the pilot pool.    
(c) This is a mandatory project.  A self-represented party is not excused from the 
project merely because the individual does not have counsel.
3. Nonadversarial Terms.  
The pilot project will incorporate the use of nonadversarial terms, such as “mother” 
or “parent” instead of “plaintiff” or “defendant.” However, the use of nonadversarial 
language will not change the roles of parents as custodians for purposes of any 
state or federal law for which custody is required to be determined.  Judgments and 
orders produced in the pilot project will clearly delineate how custody is to be 
determined for purposes of state and federal laws that require a person to be 
designated as a custodian. 
4. Procedure.
When an attorney or a pro se parent files a complaint with the clerk’s office, and 
the clerk’s office determines that the new case meets the requirements of the pilot 
project, that parent will be given two informational pamphlets explaining the 
purpose of the project, as well as two sets of instructions for a parenting time plan 
and two blank forms for proposed parenting time plans.  Each of these documents 
must be approved by the State Court Administrative Office before they are 
distributed by the court to the parent.   
The parent’s attorney or the pro se parent seeking the divorce will be responsible 
for serving the informational pamphlet regarding parenting time instructions and 
the proposed parenting time plan on the other parent.   The parent’s attorney must 
ensure that his or her client receives the informational pamphlet containing the 
parenting time instructions and the proposed parenting time plan. 
Each parent must complete the proposed parenting time plan and file it with the 
court within 28 days of filing his or her initial pleadings.  The parents must also 
serve the other parent’s attorney, or the other parent if that parent is not 
represented, and the friend of the court with a copy of the proposed parenting time 
plan.
5. Amendment.
These processes may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating 
judges, approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the state court 
administrator.
6. Expiration.
Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program shall 
continue until July 30, 2009.
[Note: Continued through February 28, 2011 by AO 2009-2]

Administrative Order No. 2008-2
Adoption of a Pilot Project to Study the Effects of the Jury Reform Proposal 
On order of the Court, the judges listed below are authorized to implement a 
pilot project to study the effects of the jury-reform proposal that was published for 
comment by this Court in an order that entered July 11, 2006.  The purposes of the 
pilot project are to determine whether, and in what way, the proposed jury-reform 
amendments support the goal of meaningful juror participation, and lead to greater 
confidence in the validity of the specific verdict and the overall jury system.  In 
addition, the Court is interested in the effects of the proposed rules on court 
efficiency and the opinions of the attorneys and jurors who will operate under them.  
Courts that participate in the pilot project will operate under the following rules for 
the period of the pilot project, which will continue through December 31, 2010, or 
as otherwise ordered by the Court.  At the Court’s request, the participating courts 
will update the Court on the pilot program’s status, and the judges’ perceptions of 
the program’s success.  The Court anticipates that the pilot courts will apply these 
rules to the greatest extent possible as a way to test and assess all of the proposed 
ideas.  The pilot project’s success will be measured by the Court’s evaluation of 
surveys that have been completed by the courts to determine the jurors’, judges’, 
and attorneys’ responses to the various procedures being tested. 
Participant judges include the following:        
                    
The Honorable Wendy L. Potts (6th Circuit Court)
                          The Honorable David Viviano (16th Circuit Court)
The Honorable Timothy G. Hicks (14th Circuit Court)
The Honorable Kenneth W. Schmidt and the Honorable William J. Caprathe (18th Circuit Court)
                          The Honorable Richard J. Celello (41st Circuit Court)
    The Honorable Paul E. Stutesman (45th Circuit Court)
     The Honorable Beth Gibson (92nd District Court)
                           The Honorable Peter J. Wadel (79th District Court)
          The Honorable Donald L. Sanderson (2B District Court)
The Honorable Thomas P. Boyd (55th District Court)
                           The Honorable Richard W. May (90th District Court)

Rule 2.512  Instructions to Jury  
(A)Request for Instructions.
(1) At a time the court reasonably directs, the parties must file written requests 
that the court instruct the jury on the law as stated in the requests.  In the absence 
of a direction from the court, a party may file a written request for jury instructions 
at or before the close of the evidence.
(2) In addition to requests for instructions submitted under subrule (A)(1), after 
the close of the evidence, each party shall submit in writing to the court a 
statement of the issues and may submit the party’s theory of the case regarding 
each issue.  The statement must be concise, be narrative in form, and set forth as 
issues only those disputed propositions of fact that are supported by the evidence.  
The theory may include those claims supported by the evidence or admitted.
(3) A copy of the requested instructions must be served on the adverse parties in 
accordance with MCR 2.107.
(4) The court shall inform the attorneys of its proposed action on the requests 
before their arguments to the jury.
(5) The court need not give the statements of issues or theories of the case in the 
form submitted if the court presents to the jury the material substance of the issues 
and theories of each party.
(B) Instructing the Jury.
(1) At any time during the trial, the court may, with or without request, instruct the 
jury on a point of law if the instruction will materially aid the jury in understanding 
the proceedings and arriving at a just verdict.
(2) Before or after arguments or at both times, as the court elects, the court shall 
instruct the jury on the applicable law, the issues presented by the case, and, if a 
party requests as provided in subrule (A)(2), that party’s theory of the case.
(C) Objections. A party may assign as error the giving of or the failure to give an 
instruction only if the party objects on the record before the jury retires to consider 
the verdict (or, in the case of instructions given after deliberations have begun, 
before the jury resumes deliberations), stating specifically the matter to which the 
party objects and the grounds for the objection. Opportunity must be given to make 
the objection out of the hearing of the jury
(D) Model Civil Jury Instructions.
(1) The Committee on Model Civil Jury Instructions appointed by the Supreme 
Court has the authority to adopt model civil jury instructions (M Civ JI) and to 
amend or repeal those instructions approved by the predecessor committee. Before 
adopting, amending, or repealing an instruction, the committee shall publish notice 
of the committee’s intent, together with the text of the instruction to be adopted, or 
the amendment to be made, or a reference to the instruction to be repealed, in the 
manner provided in MCR 1.201. The notice shall specify the time and manner for 
commenting on the proposal. The committee shall thereafter publish notice of its 
final action on the proposed change, including, if appropriate, the effective date of 
the adoption, amendment, or repeal. A model civil jury instruction does not have 
the force and effect of a court rule.
(2) Pertinent portions of the instructions approved by the Committee on Model Civil 
Jury Instructions or its predecessor committee must be given in each action in 
which jury instructions are given if
(a) they are applicable,
(b) they accurately state the applicable law, and
(c) they are requested by a party.
(3) Whenever the committee recommends that no instruction be given on a 
particular matter, the court shall not give an instruction unless it specifically finds 
for reasons stated on the record that
(a) the instruction is necessary to state the applicable law accurately, and
(b) the matter is not adequately covered by other pertinent model civil jury 
instructions.
(4) This subrule does not limit the power of the court to give additional instructions 
on applicable law not covered by the model instructions. Additional instructions, 
when given, must be patterned as nearly as practicable after the style of the model 
instructions and must be concise, understandable, conversational, unslanted, and 
nonargumentative.

Rule 2.513  Conduct of Jury Trial 
(A) Preliminary Instructions.  After the jury is sworn and before evidence is taken, 
the court shall provide the jury with pretrial instructions reasonably likely to assist 
in its consideration of the case.  Such instructions, at a minimum, shall 
communicate the duties of the jury, trial procedure, and the law applicable to the 
case as are reasonably necessary to enable the jury to understand the proceedings 
and the evidence.  The jury also shall be instructed about the elements of all civil 
claims or all charged offenses, as well as the legal presumptions and burdens of 
proof.  The court shall provide each juror with a copy of such instructions.  MCR 
2.512(D)(2) does not apply to such preliminary instructions.

(B) Court’s Responsibility.  The trial court must control the proceedings during trial, 
limit the evidence and arguments to relevant and proper matters, and take 
appropriate steps to ensure that the jurors will not be exposed to information or 
influences that might affect their ability to render an impartial verdict on the 
evidence presented in court.  The court may not communicate with the jury or any 
juror pertaining to the case without notifying the parties and permitting them to be 
present.  The court must ensure that all communications pertaining to the case 
between the court and the jury or any juror are made a part of the record. 
(C) Opening Statements.  Unless the parties and the court agree otherwise, the 
plaintiff or the prosecutor, before presenting evidence, must make a full and fair 
statement of the case and the facts the plaintiff or the prosecutor intends to prove.  
Immediately thereafter, or immediately before presenting evidence, the defendant 
may make a similar statement.  The court may impose reasonable time limits on 
the opening statements.
(D) Interim Commentary.  Each party may, in the court’s discretion, present interim 
commentary at appropriate junctures of the trial.
(E) Reference Documents.  The court must encourage counsel in civil and criminal 
cases to provide the jurors with a reference document or notebook, the contents of 
which should include, but which is not limited to, witness lists, relevant statutory 
provisions, and, in cases where the interpretation of a document is at issue, copies 
of the relevant document.  The court and the parties may supplement the reference 
document during trial with copies of the preliminary jury instructions, admitted 
exhibits, and other appropriate information to assist jurors in their deliberations.
(F) Deposition Summaries.  Where it appears likely that the contents of a 
deposition will be read to the jury, the court should encourage the parties to 
prepare concise, written summaries of depositions for reading at trial in lieu of the 
full deposition.  Where a summary is prepared, the opposing party shall have the 
opportunity to object to its contents.  Copies of the summaries should be provided 
to the jurors before they are read.
(G) Scheduling Expert Testimony.  The court may, in its discretion, craft a 
procedure for the presentation of all expert testimony to assist the jurors in 
performing their duties.  Such procedures may include, but are not limited to:
(1) Scheduling the presentation of the parties’ expert witnesses sequentially; or
(2) allowing the opposing experts to be present during the other’s testimony and to 
aid counsel in formulating questions to be asked of the testifying expert on cross examination; or
(3) providing for a panel discussion by all experts on a subject after or in lieu of 
testifying.  The panel discussion, moderated by a neutral expert or the trial judge, 
would allow the experts to question each other.
(H) Note Taking by Jurors.  The court may permit the jurors to take notes regarding 
the evidence presented in court.  If the court permits note taking, it must instruct 
the jurors that they need not take notes, and they should not permit note taking to 
interfere with their attentiveness.  If the court allows jurors to take notes, jurors 
must be allowed to refer to their notes during deliberations, but the court must 
instruct the jurors to keep their notes confidential except as to other jurors during 
deliberations.  The court shall ensure that all juror notes are collected and 
destroyed when the trial is concluded.
(I) Juror Questions.  The court may permit the jurors to ask questions of 
witnesses.  If the court permits jurors to ask questions, it must employ a procedure 
that ensures that such questions are addressed to the witnesses by the court itself, 
that inappropriate questions are not asked, and that the parties have an 
opportunity outside the hearing of the jury to object to the questions.  The court 
shall inform the jurors of the procedures to be followed for submitting questions to 
witnesses.
(J) Jury View.  On motion of either party, on its own initiative, or at the request of 
the jury, the court may order a jury view of property or of a place where a material 
event occurred.  The parties are entitled to be present at the jury view.  During the 
view, no person, other than an officer designated by the court, may speak to the 
jury concerning the subject connected with the trial.  Any such communication must 
be recorded in some fashion.
(K) Juror Discussion.  After informing the jurors that they are not to decide the case 
until they have heard all the evidence, instructions of law, and arguments of 
counsel, the court may instruct the jurors that they are permitted to discuss the 
evidence among themselves in the jury room during trial recesses.  The jurors 
should be instructed that such discussions may only take place when all jurors are 
present and that such discussions must be clearly understood as tentative pending 
final presentation of all evidence, instructions, and argument.
(L) Closing Arguments.  After the close of all the evidence, the parties may make 
closing arguments.  The plaintiff or the prosecutor is entitled to make the first 
closing argument.  If the defendant makes an argument, the plaintiff or the 
prosecutor may offer a rebuttal limited to the issues raised in the defendant’s 
argument.  The court may impose reasonable time limits on the closing arguments.
(M) Comment on the Evidence.  After the close of the evidence and arguments of 
counsel, the court may fairly and impartially sum up the evidence and comment to 
the jury about the weight of the evidence, if it also instructs the jury that it is to 
determine for itself the weight of the evidence and the credit to be given to the 
witnesses and that jurors are not bound by the court’s summation or comment.  
The court shall not comment on the credibility of witnesses or state a conclusion on 
the ultimate issue of fact before the jury.
(N) Final Instructions to the Jury.
(1) Before closing arguments, the court must give the parties a reasonable 
opportunity to submit written requests for jury instructions.  Each party must serve 
a copy of the written requests on all other parties.  The court must inform the 
parties of its proposed action on the requests before their closing arguments.  After 
closing arguments are made or waived, the court must instruct the jury as required 
and appropriate, but at the discretion of the court, and on notice to the parties, the 
court may instruct the jury before the parties make closing arguments.  After jury 
deliberations begin, the court may give additional instructions that are appropriate.
(2) Solicit Questions about Final Instructions.  As part of the final jury instructions, 
the court shall advise the jury that it may submit in a sealed envelope given to the 
bailiff any written questions about the jury instructions that arise during 
deliberations.  Upon concluding the final instructions, the court shall invite the 
jurors to ask any questions in order to clarify the instructions before they retire to 
deliberate.
If questions arise, the court and the parties shall convene, in the courtroom or 
by other agreed-upon means.  The question shall be read into the record, and the 
attorneys shall offer comments on an appropriate response.  The court may, in its 
discretion, provide the jury with a specific response to the jury’s question, but the 
court shall respond to all questions asked, even if the response consists of a 
directive for the jury to continue its deliberations.
(3) Copies of Final Instructions.  The court shall provide each juror with a written 
copy of the final jury instructions to take into the jury room for deliberation.  The 
court, in its discretion, also may provide the jury with a copy of electronically 
recorded instructions.
(4) Clarifying or Amplifying Final Instructions.  When it appears that a deliberating 
jury has reached an impasse, or is otherwise in need of assistance, the court may 
invite the jurors to list the issues that divide or confuse them in the event that the 
judge can be of assistance in clarifying or amplifying the final instructions.
(O) Materials in the Jury Room.  The court shall permit the jurors, on retiring to 
deliberate, to take into the jury room their notes and final instructions.  The court 
may permit the jurors to take into the jury room the reference document, if one 
has been  prepared, as well as any exhibits and writings admitted into evidence.
(P) Provide Testimony or Evidence.  If, after beginning deliberation, the jury 
requests a review of certain testimony or evidence that has not been allowed into 
the jury room under subrule (O), the court must exercise its discretion to ensure 
fairness and to refuse unreasonable requests, but it may not refuse a reasonable 
request.  The court may make a video or audio recording of witness testimony, or 
prepare an immediate transcript of such testimony, and such tape or transcript, or 
other testimony or evidence, may be made available to the jury for its 
consideration.  The court may order the jury to deliberate further without the 
requested review, as long as the possibility of having the testimony or evidence 
reviewed at a later time is not foreclosed.
Rule 2.514 Rendering Verdict 
(A) Majority Verdict; Stipulations Regarding Number of Jurors and Verdict. The 
parties may stipulate in writing or on the record that
(1) the jury will consist of any number less than 6, 
(2) a verdict or a finding of a stated majority of the jurors will be taken as the 
verdict or finding of the jury, or
(3) if more than 6 jurors were impaneled, all the jurors may deliberate.
Except as provided in MCR 5.740(C), in the absence of such stipulation, a verdict in 
a civil action tried by 6 jurors will be received when 5 jurors agree.
(B) Return; Poll.
(1) The jury must return its verdict in open court. 
(2) A party may require a poll to be taken by the court asking each juror if it is his 
or her verdict.
(3) If the number of jurors agreeing is less than required, the jury must be sent 
back for further deliberation; otherwise, the verdict is complete, and the court shall 
discharge the jury.
(C) Discharge From Action; New Jury. The court may discharge a jury from the 
action:
(1) because of an accident or calamity requiring it; 
(2) by consent of all the parties;
(3) whenever an adjournment or mistrial is declared;
(4) whenever the jurors have deliberated and it appears that they cannot agree.
The court may order another jury to be drawn, and the same proceedings may be 
had before the new jury as might have been had before the jury that was 
discharged.
(D) Responsibility of Officers.
(1) All court officers, including trial attorneys, must attend during the trial of an 
action until the verdict of the jury is announced.
(2) A trial attorney may, on request, be released by the court from further 
attendance, or the attorney may designate an associate or other attorney to act for 
him or her during the deliberations of the jury.
Rule 2.515 Special Verdicts  
(A)Use of Special Verdicts; Form. The court may require the jury to return a 
special verdict in the form of a written finding on each issue of fact, rather than a 
general verdict. If a special verdict is required, the court shall, in advance of 
argument and in the absence of the jury, advise the attorneys of this fact and, on 
the record or in writing, settle the form of the verdict. The court may submit to the 
jury:
(1) written questions that may be answered categorically and briefly;
(2) written forms of the several special findings that might properly be made under 
the pleadings and evidence; or
(3) the issues by another method, and require the written findings it deems most 
appropriate.
The court shall give to the jury the necessary explanation and instruction 
concerning the matter submitted to enable the jury to make its findings on each 
issue.
(B) Judgment. After a special verdict is returned, the court shall enter judgment in 
accordance with the jury's findings.
(C) Failure to Submit Question; Waiver; Findings by Court. If the court omits from 
the special verdict form an issue of fact raised by the pleadings or the evidence, a 
party waives the right to a trial by jury of the issue omitted unless the party 
demands its submission to the jury before it retires for deliberations. The court may 
make a finding with respect to an issue omitted without a demand.  If the court 
fails to do so, it is deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on 
the special verdict.

Rule 2.516 Motion for Directed Verdict  
(A) Request for Instructions.
A party may move for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an 
opponent. The motion must state specific grounds in support of the motion. If the 
motion is not granted, the moving party may offer evidence without having
reserved the right to do so, as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a 
directed verdict that is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury, even though all 
parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts.
Administrative Order No. 2009-1
[Rescinded October 20, 2011 by an order incorporating the relevant content and 
further amending AO 2007-3]
Extension and Expansion of E-Filing Pilot Project
On order of the Court, the provisions of the e-filing pilot project authorized in 
Administrative Order No. 2007-3 in the Oakland Circuit Court are continued in 
effect through July 30, 2013.
Further, the Oakland Circuit Court shall file an annual report with the Court 
within 90 days of this order covering the project to date and by January 1 of each 
following year (or more frequently or on another date as specified by the Court) 
that outlines the following:
1. Detailed financial data that shows the total amount of money collected in 
fees for documents filed and/or served under the pilot project to date, the 
original projections for collections of fees, and whether the projections have 
been met or exceeded.
2. Detailed financial information regarding the distribution/retention of 
collected fees, including the amount paid to Wiznet per document and in total 
for the subject period and the amount retained by the court per document 
and in total for the period, and whether the monies retained by the court are 
in a separate account or commingled with other monies.
3. A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a 
statement of whether and when each cost will recur.
4. A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the court whether by reduced 
personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the 
court are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties. 
5. Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and 
whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after 
the conclusion of the pilot program.
6. A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee 
collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods.
Further, the Oakland Circuit Court is authorized to expand the case-type codes 
eligible for participation in the e-filing pilot project to those that begin with “A” and 
“P.” 

Administrative Order No. 2009-2
On order of the Court, the provisions of the pilot project authorized in 
Administrative Order No. 2008-1, relating to the use of parenting time plans and 
nonadversarial language in domestic relations proceedings in the 17th
Circuit Court,  are continued in effect through February 28, 2011.

Administrative Order No. 2009-3
Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the 53rd
Circuit Court of 
Cheboygan and Presque Isle Counties and the Presque Isle County Probate 
Court
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 the following concurrent jurisdiction 
plan effective July 1, 2009:
• The 53rd
Circuit Court of Cheboygan and Presque Isle Counties and the 
Presque Isle County Probate Court.
The plan shall remain on file with the state court administrator.
Amendments of 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. 2009-4
E-filing Pilot Project in the 42 nd
Circuit Court
On order of the Court, the 42nd
Circuit Court is authorized to implement an 
electronic filing pilot project to study, in asbestos cases, the effectiveness of 
electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper filings.  The pilot 
project shall begin May 19, 2009, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and shall 
remain in effect until July 30, 2013, or further order of this Court.  The 42nd Circuit 
Court acknowledges that certain rules regarding electronic filing have been 
published for comment by this Court.  If this Court adopts electronic-filing rules 
during the pendency of this pilot project, the 42nd
Circuit Court will, within 60 days 
of the effective date of the rules, comply with the requirements of those rules.  
The 42nd
Circuit Court will track the participation in and effectiveness of this 
pilot project and shall report to and provide such information upon request by the 
State Court Administrative Office.
1. Construction
The purpose of the pilot project is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing 
court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination 
of the actions involved in the pilot project. This court may exercise its discretion to 
grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to affect the 
substantial rights of the parties.  The Michigan Court Rules govern all other aspects 
of the cases involved in the pilot project, except for matters related to electronically 
filing documents during the pilot project.
2. Definitions
(a) “Clerk” means the Midland County Clerk.
(b) “E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, 
judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to the pilot 
project.
(c) “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the 42
nd
Circuit 
Court.
(d) “MCR” means the Michigan Court Rules.
(e) “Pilot project” means the initiative by the 42
nd
Circuit Court, the Clerk, 
and the Midland County Information Systems Department in conjunction with 
Wiznet, Inc., CherryLAN Systems, Inc., and under the supervision of the State 
Court Administrative Office.  This e-filing application facilitates the electronic filing 
of pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and 
other documents.  
(f) “Asbestos” means the matters that the pilot project will test and are 
described as all pending cases identified as an “NP” Case Type based in whole or in 
part on a claim of injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. 
(g) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other 
malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or 
receiving service of an e-filing.
3. Participation in the Pilot Project
(a) Participation in the pilot project shall be mandatory in all pending 
“Asbestos” type cases.  Participation shall be assigned following the filing and 
service of the initial complaint or other initial filing and assignment of the case to 
the participating judge.
(b) This is a mandatory e-filing project.  It is presumed that all documents 
will be filed electronically. However, the court recognizes that circumstances may 
arise that will prevent one from e-filing.  To ensure that all parties retain access to 
the courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file their 
documents with the clerk, who will then file the documents electronically.  Among 
the factors that the 42
nd
Circuit Court will consider in determining whether good 
cause exists to excuse a party from mandatory e-filing are a party’s access to the 
Internet and indigency.  A self-represented party is not excused from the pilot 
project merely because the individual does not have counsel.
4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance, and Time of Service with the Court; 
Signature
(a) In an effort to facilitate uniform service within the scope of this pilot 
project, the 42
nd
Circuit Court strongly recommends electronic service.
(b) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and 
the pilot project’s technical requirements.  The clerk may, in accordance with MCR 
8.119(C), reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR 
2.113(C)(1), are not accompanied by the proper fees, do not conform to the 
technical requirements of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in violation 
of a statute, an MCR, an LAO, or the program rules.
Type of Filing Fee
EFO (e-filing only)  $5.00
EFS (e-filing with service)  $8.00
SO (service only)  $5.00
(ii) Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 
3% user fee.
6. Service
(a) All parties shall provide the court and opposing parties with one e-mail 
address with the functionality required for the pilot project.  All service shall 
originate from and be perfected upon this e-mail address.
(b) Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all e-filings 
must be served electronically to the e-mail addresses of all parties. The subject 
matter line for the transmittal of document served by e-mail shall state: “Service of 
e-filing in case [insert caption of case].”
(c) The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail service, efilings may be served to the parties (but not the court) by facsimile or by traditional 
means.  For those choosing to accept facsimile service:
(i) the parties shall provide the court and the opposing parties with one 
facsimile number with appropriate functionality,
(ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service 
may be made,
(iii) the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of delivery, 
and
(iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use 
of facsimile communication equipment.
(d) Proof of service shall be submitted to the 42
nd
Circuit Court according to 
MCR 2.104 and this administrative order.
7. Format and Form of E-filing and Service
(a) A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction.
(b) All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements 
of the court’s vendor.
(c) Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly 
designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment.
(d) All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the 
parties in the same format and form as submitted to the court.
8. Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filed
The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot project and must be 
filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO:
(a) documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order),
(b) initiating documents, and
(c) documents for case evaluation proceedings.
9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies
(a) For purposes of this pilot project, e-filings are the official court record. 
An appellate record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1).
(b) Certified or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the 
conventional manner by the clerk in compliance with the Michigan Trial Court Case 
File Management Standards.
(c) At the conclusion of the pilot project, if the program does not continue 
as a pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to 
paper form in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d).  Participating attorneys shall 
provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record.
(d) At the conclusion of the pilot project, if the program continues as a pilot 
project or in another format, the clerk shall provide for record retention and public 
access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the Court and the court rules.
10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments
At the court’s discretion, the court may issue, file, and serve orders, judgments, 
and notices as e-filings.  Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the parties may agree 
to accept service from the court via facsimile pursuant to the procedures set forth 
in Section 6(c) above.
11. Technical Malfunctions
(a) A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment 
(such as format or conversion problems or inability to access the pilot sites), 
another party’s equipment (such as an inoperable e-mail address), or an apparent 
technical malfunction of the court’s pilot equipment, software, or server shall use 
reasonable efforts to timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall 
provide prompt notice to the court and the parties of any such malfunction.
(b) If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, 
responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, the 
consider proof of the technical malfunction and use its discretion in 
determining whether such relief is warranted.
12. Privacy Considerations
a.With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal 
information shall apply:
i. Social Security Numbers.  Full social security numbers shall not 
be included in e-filings.  If an individual’s social security number 
must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that 
number may be used and the number specified in substantially 
the following format:  XXX-XX-1234.
ii. Names of Minor Children.  Unless named as a party, the identity 
of minor children shall not be included in e-filings.  If a nonparty minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that 
child’s name may be used.
iii. Dates of Birth.  An individual’s full birth date shall not be 
included in e-filings.  If an individual’s date of birth must be 
referenced in an e-filing, only the year may be used and the 
date specified in substantially the following format:  
XX/XX/1998.
iv. Financial Account Numbers.  Full financial account numbers shall 
not be included in e-filings unless required by statute, court 
rule, or other authority.  If a financial account number must be 
referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of these 
numbers may be used and the number specified in substantially 
the following format:  XXXXXX1234.
v. Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal 
Identification Card Numbers.  A person’s full driver’s license 
number and state-issued personal identification number shall 
not be included in e-filings.  If an individual’s driver’s license 
number or state-issued personal identification card number 
must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that 
number should be used and the number specified in 
substantially the following format:  X-XXX-XXX-XX1-234.
vi. Home Addresses.  With the exception of a self-represented 
party, full home addresses shall not be included in e-filings.  If 
an individual’s home address must be referenced in an e-filing, 
only the city and state should be used.
b. Parties wishing to file a complete personal data identifier listed 
above may:
i. Pursuant to, and in accordance with the MCR and administrative 
orders, file a motion seeking the court’s permission to file a 
traditional paper version of the document under seal.  The court 
may, in granting the motion to file the document under seal, still 
require that an e-filing that does not reveal the complete 
personal data identifier be filed for the public files.
or
ii. Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR and LAO, 
obtain a court order to file a traditional paper reference list 
under seal.  The reference list shall contain the complete 
personal data identifiers and the redacted identifiers used in the 
e-filing.  All references in the case to the redacted identifiers 
included in the reference list shall be construed to refer to the 
corresponding complete personal data identifiers.  The reference 
list must be filed under seal, and may be amended as of right.
c.Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private 
or confidential information, including, but not limited to, the 
information covered above and listed below:
i. Medical records, treatment, and diagnosis;
ii. Employment history;
iii. Individual financial information;
iv. Insurance information;
v. Proprietary or trade secret information;Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
vi. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the 
government; and
vii. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal 
activity.
13. Amendment
These rules may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, 
the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the state court administrator.
14. Expiration
Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, 
requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating 
judges, shall continue until July 1, 2011, or further order of the 56th Circuit Court.
Administrative Order No. 2009-6
[Entered September 9, 2009]
A Court Shall Submit a Local Administrative Order to SCAO When 
Appointing Magistrates and Referees
On order of the Court, effective January 1, 2010, a court shall submit local 
administrative orders to the State Court Administrative Office to identify individuals 
appointed as magistrates or referees in that court.
Courts are authorized by statute to appoint magistrates and referees to 
positions that allow those magistrates and referees to perform various functions.  
As the entity charged with supervision of the state’s courts, it is essential that the 
State Court Administrative Office of the Michigan Supreme Court be aware of the 
identity of each of these appointed individuals.  In addition, because the law with 
regard to magistrates allows the court that appoints the magistrate to establish the 
scope of the duties the magistrate will perform, and because immunity for the 
magistrate’s actions extends only to those actions that are performed within the 
scope of the authority established by the court that appoints the magistrate, it is 
also essential that the Supreme Court be notified of the scope of authority granted Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
by each court to its magistrate or magistrates.  Further, the Michigan Court Rules 
grant courts the authority to determine the specific types of hearings and 
proceedings to be heard by referees, and this information should likewise be 
submitted to the State Court Administrative Office.
Accordingly, on order of the Court, 
A.  Each court that appoints a magistrate or referee shall submit a local 
administrative order to the State Court Administrative Office that identifies an 
individual appointed as a magistrate or referee.  The local administrative order shall 
include the name and contact information for the individual and the date the 
appointment is or was effective.
B.  Further, each court that appoints a magistrate or referee shall describe the 
scope of the authority conferred by the court on the magistrate or referee.
C.  It is the responsibility of a magistrate or referee to notify the State Court 
Administrative Office of changes in the individual’s contact information during the 
course of the appointment.
Administrative Order No. 2009-7
Adoption of a Pilot Project in the 46
th
District Court to Study the Effects of 
Proposed Rule 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules
On August 11, 2009, the 46
th
District Court submitted a letter to the Court in 
which the 46
th
District Court proposed revision of MCR 8.119 to implement a 
process that would allow a court clerk to return to a litigant a document that the 
clerk has identified as nonconforming with the Michigan Court Rules, requirements 
contained in the Michigan statutes, or the Michigan Supreme Court records 
standards.  Upon receipt of the returned document, the litigant would have several 
options: the litigant could correct the nonconformity identified by the clerk, submit 
documentation in support of the document, request the clerk to submit the paper 
as it was initially submitted for immediate review by the court, or withdraw the 
document.  On order of the Court, the 46
th
District Court is authorized to implement 
a pilot project in its court to study the effects of proposed Rule 8.119, limited to 
cases that involve garnishments and consumer debt collections.  Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
The purpose of the pilot project is to determine whether the proposed language 
represents a feasible and practical procedure for courts to follow in screening 
documents that are submitted for filing in cases that involve garnishments and 
consumer debt collections.  The Court is interested in learning whether this 
procedure will increase efficiency within the court (including assessing its effect on 
the clerk and the judges of the court), and determining what effect the procedure 
will have on litigants.  The 46
th
District Court will operate under the following rule 
for the period of the pilot project, which will begin on the date this order enters and 
continue for one year or as otherwise ordered by the Court.  The 46
th
District Court 
will provide a report to the Court within three months of the conclusion of the pilot 
project regarding the court’s assessment of the feasibility of the procedure 
described below.  In addition, litigants will have an opportunity to provide feedback 
on the pilot project through a survey to be included when documents are returned 
by clerks, and through polls conducted of those who participate in the judicial 
review procedure.  The 46
th
District Court shall keep a list of litigants who request 
that the submitted document be reviewed by a judge.
Rule 8.119  Court Records and Reports; Duties of Clerks
(A)-(B)[Unchanged.]
(C) Filing of Papers. The clerk of the court shall endorse on the first page of every 
document the date on which it is filed. Papers filed with the clerk of the court must 
comply with the Michigan Court Rules, requirements contained in the Michigan 
statutes, and the Michigan Supreme Court records standards.  The clerk of the 
court may reject papers which do not conform to MCR 2.113(C)(1) and MCR 
5.113(A)(1) return nonconforming papers related to a garnishment or consumer 
debt collection case in accordance with (D) below. 
(D) Return of Nonconforming Papers Related to Garnishment or Consumer Debt 
Collection Case.  If the clerk of the court returns a paper related to a garnishment 
or consumer debt collection case as nonconforming, the clerk must notify the 
litigant in writing of the reason for the return.  The notice shall provide the name 
and phone number of the deputy clerk returning the papers.  The litigant may, with 
no additional filing or motion fee, (a) submit supporting documentation; (b) submit 
an amended version of the paper; (c) request the clerk to submit the paper as 
initially submitted to the court for immediate review; or (d) withdraw the paper.  If 
no judge is assigned to the case, the chief judge or the chief judge’s designee shall 
perform the review.  Upon review, the judge shall either allow the filing or issue a 
written order disallowing the filing.  If disallowed, the reason shall be stated in the 
order.  If the litigant withdraws the paper, the court shall not charge a filing fee and 
any filing fee previously paid shall be returned to the filer.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
If a complaint is returned by a clerk as nonconforming, the litigant may file a 
motion for judicial review.  Upon review, if the judge decides that the complaint 
was conforming as originally filed and should have been accepted, the complaint 
shall be considered filed on the original filing date.
(D)-(G)[Relettered (E)-(H), but otherwise unchanged.]
Administrative Order 2010-1
Adoption of Administrative Order to Establish and Require Compliance with 
Court Collections Program and Reporting Requirements
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes 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 
administrative order is adopted, effective May 1, 2010.
Enforcing court orders, including financial sanctions, is a responsibility of the 
courts that, if done effectively, enhances the courts’ integrity and credibility while 
providing funds to assure victims are made whole and support law enforcement, 
libraries, the crime victim’s rights fund, and local governments.  In order to 
improve the enforcement and collection of court-ordered financial sanctions, it is 
ordered that the State Court Administrator establish court collections program 
requirements and that all circuit courts, circuit court family divisions, district courts, 
and municipal courts comply with those requirements.  The State Court 
Administrative Office shall enforce the requirements and assist courts in adopting 
practices in compliance with those requirements.
In order to effectively monitor and measure the effect of collections programs, 
it is ordered that the State Court Administrator establish reporting requirements 
regarding outstanding receivables and collections efforts undertaken by courts, 
including establishment of the reporting format, method, and due dates.  It is 
further ordered that all circuit courts, circuit court family divisions, district courts, 
and municipal courts comply with those requirements.  The State Court 
Administrative Office shall facilitate compliance with and enforce the requirements.
Administrative Order 2010-2
Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the12
th
Circuit Court and the 
Baraga County Probate CourtAdministrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
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 approves adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction plan, 
effective June 14, 2010:
• The 12
th
Circuit Court and the Baraga County Probate Court
The plan 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 2010-3
[As amended October 20, 2011]
E-filing Pilot Project in Oakland Circuit Court, Family Division
Beginning March 16, 2010, or as soon thereafter as is possible and effective until 
December 31, 2012 or further order of this court, the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court 
adopts an e-filing pilot program requiring parties to electronically file documents in 
cases assigned to one or more participating judges.  Rules designed to address 
issues unique to the implementation of this program are attached to and 
incorporated by reference to this local administrative order.  Participation in this 
pilot program is mandatory for cases with a “DO” case code and assigned to pilot 
program judge(s), and, effective immediately, will be gradually implemented for 
cases with a “DM” case code.
The Sixth Judicial Circuit Court will track the participation and effectiveness of this 
pilot program and report the results to the SCAO.
1. Construction
The purpose of the pilot is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court 
documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination of 
divorce actions involved in the pilot.  The Court may exercise its discretion to grant 
necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to affect the 
substantial rights of the parties.  Except for matters related to electronically filing 
documents during the pilot, the Michigan Rules of Court govern all other aspects of 
the cases involved in the pilot.  
2. DefinitionsAdministrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(a) “Clerk” means the Oakland County Clerk.
(b) “E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, 
order, judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to 
the pilot.  
(c) “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the Sixth 
Judicial Circuit Court.
(d) “MCR” means the Michigan Rules of Court.  
(e) “Pilot” means the initiative by the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, the 
Oakland County Clerk, and the Oakland County Department of 
Information Technology in conjunction with Wiznet, Inc. and under the 
supervision of the SCAO.  This e-filing application facilitates the 
electronic filing of pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, 
judgments, notices, and other documents.  The vision is that all state 
courts in Michigan will eventually permit e-filing (with appropriate 
modifications and improvements).  The Oakland County pilot will begin 
testing with two Circuit Court judges with “DO” type civil cases.  “DM” 
type cases are also included in the scope of this pilot project.  The 
Court plans to expand the pilot to all Family Division judges who wish 
to participate.   The pilot program is expected to last approximately 
two years, beginning on January 1, 2010.  
(f) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other 
malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing 
or sending or receiving service of an e-filing.
(g) “Wiznet envelope” means an electronic submission that contains one 
or more Wiznet transactions.
(h) “Wiznet transaction” means the submission of one or more related 
documents which results in a single register of actions entry.  A single 
register of actions entry is determined by the Clerk.  E.g. a motion, 
brief, affidavit, notice of hearing, and proof of service for a single 
motion submitted at one time frequently constitutes a single register 
of actions entry.  
3. Participation in the Pilot
(a) Participation in the Pilot program shall be mandatory in all pending or 
newly filed “DO” type cases assigned to participating Circuit Court judges.  
Participation for new filings shall begin following the filing of the initial 
complaint or other initiating document, and assignment of the case to a 
participating judge.  At the discretion of the e-filing judge, participation in 
the pilot may also include proceedings in post-disposition cases assigned 
to the pilot judge.
In addition, this order authorizes e-filing for all “DM” cases.  Recognizing 
the logistical challenges associated with implementing e-filing in “DM” 
cases, the Court authorizes the Family Division of the Sixth Circuit Court 
to gradually implement the pilot beginning with a limited number of cases Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
assigned to a single judge and a single Friend of the Court referee team 
assigned to that judge.  The Sixth Circuit Court may expand the scope of 
the pilot at any time to include additional judges and/or FOC referee 
teams without further authorization of the Court.  
(b) This is a mandatory e-filing project.  It is presumed that all documents 
will be filed electronically.  However, the Court recognizes that 
circumstances will arise which prevent one from e-filing.  To ensure that 
all parties retain access to the courts, parties that demonstrate good 
cause will be permitted to file their documents with the Clerk, who will 
then file the documents electronically.  Among the factors that the Court 
will consider in determining whether good cause exists to excuse a party 
from mandatory e-filing are a party’s access to the Internet and 
indigency.  A self-represented party is not excused from the project 
merely because the individual does not have counsel.  
4.  E-filings Submission, Acceptance, and Time of Service with the Court; Signature
(a) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and 
the Pilot program’s technical requirements.  The Clerk may, in accordance 
with MCR 8.119(C) reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply 
with MCR 2.113(C), are not accompanied by the proper fees, clearly violate 
AO 2006-2, do not conform to the technical requirements of this pilot project, 
or are otherwise submitted in violation of statute, court rule, administrative 
order, or program rules.
(b) E-filings may be submitted to the court at any time, but shall only be 
reviewed and accepted for filing by the Oakland County Clerk’s Office during 
normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.  E-filings submitted after 
business hours shall be deemed filed the business day the e-filing is accepted 
(usually the next business day).  The Clerk shall process electronic 
submissions on a first in/ first out basis.  
(c) E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand delivered to the court for all 
purposes under statute, court rule, and administrative order. 
(d) A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under 
this rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court clerk, 
attorney, party, or declarant.  
(i)Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form:  /s/ 
John L. Smith.  
(ii) A document that requires a signature under the penalty of 
perjury is deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the 
declarant has signed a printed form of the document.  
(iii) An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public 
is deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the 
notary public has signed a printed form of the document.  
(e) The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a 
verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g., an affidavit, notarization, or bill Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
of costs) must be maintained by the filing attorney or self represented 
litigant and made available upon reasonable request of the court, the 
signatory, or opposing party.
(f) Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the 
provisions of the pilot.  The Court and Clerk shall exchange the documents 
for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B).  
(g) By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer indicates 
compliance with these rules.
5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; Judge’s 
Copies; Hearings on Motions; Fees
(a) All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the 
applicable statute, court rule, and administrative order as if the e-filings were 
hand delivered.  Where a praecipe is required by LCR 2.119(A), it must be 
submitted electronically to the Court through the epraecipe application at 
http://courts.oakgov.com/ePraecipe/. 
(b) The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this Pilot 
program satisfies the requirements of filing a Judge’s Copy under MCR 
2.119(A)(2).  Upon a request of the Court, the filing party shall promptly 
provide a traditional paper Judge’s Copy to chambers. 
(c) Applicable fees, including e-file fees and service fees, shall be paid 
electronically through procedures established by the Oakland County Clerk’s 
Office at the same time and in the same amount as required by statute, 
court rule, or administrative order.  
(i)  Each e-filing is subject to the following e-file fees.
Type of Filing Fee
EFO (e-file only) $5.00
EFS (e-filing with service) $8.00
SO (service only) $5.00
(ii) Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 3% 
user fee.  
6.  Service
(a) All parties shall register as a service contact with the Wiznet application 
which will provide the court and opposing parties with one email address with 
the functionality required for the Pilot program.  
(b) It is highly recommended that all e-filings must be served electronically 
to the email addresses of all parties.  
(c) The parties and court may agree that, instead of eservice, e-filings may 
be served to the parties (but not the court) as provided in MCR 2.107.  Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(d) For those choosing to accept facsimile service: 
(i) the parties shall provide the court and opposing parties with one 
facsimile number with appropriate functionality, 
(ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service 
may be made, 
(iii)  the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of delivery, 
and 
(iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use 
of facsimile communication equipment.  
(e) Proof of Service shall be submitted to the Court according to MCR 
2.104 and these rules.
7.  Format and Form of E-filing and Service
(a)A party may only e-file documents for one case per Wiznet envelope.
(b)A party may e-file multiple Wiznet transactions within a single Wiznet 
envelope, subject to subrule 7(a).    
(c) All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements 
of the Court’s vendor.  
(d)Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly 
designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment.  
(e)All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the 
parties in same format and form as submitted to the court.
8.  Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filed
The following documents shall not be e-filed during the Pilot program and must be 
filed by the traditional methods provided in the court rules and administrative 
orders: 
(a) documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order), and
(b) initiating documents, and
(c) documents related to divorce proceedings that are not filed in the court 
file, such as a verified statement of divorce and judgment information forms. 
9.  Official Court Record; Certified Copies
(a) For purposes of this Pilot program, the electronic version of all 
documents filed with the Court , with the exception of documents filed under 
seal [see 8(a) and MCR 8.119(F)] is the official court record.  An appellate 
record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1).
(b) Certified or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the 
conventional manner by the Oakland County Clerk’s Office in compliance with 
the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards.
(c) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the  program does not 
continue as a pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
e-filings to paper form in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d).  Participating 
attorneys shall provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper 
record.
(d) At the conclusion of the Pilot program, if the program continues as a Pilot 
project or in another format, the Court and Clerk shall provide for record 
retention and public access in a manner consistent with the instructions of 
the court and court rules.
10.  Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments
The Court shall issue, file, and serve orders, judgments, and notices as e-filings.  A 
party exempted from e-filing under this pilot shall be served in accordance with 
MCR 2.107(C).  
11. Technical Malfunctions
(a)A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment 
(such as PDF conversion problems or inability to access the Pilot sites), 
another party’s equipment (such as an inoperable email address), or an 
apparent technical malfunction of the court’s Pilot equipment, software or 
server shall use reasonable efforts to timely file or receive service as 
provided in these rules and shall provide prompt notice to the court and 
parties of any such malfunction.  
(b)If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, 
responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, 
the affected party may petition the Court for relief.  Such petition shall 
contain an adequate proof of the technical malfunction and set forth good 
cause for failure to use non-electronic means to timely file or serve a 
document.  The Court shall liberally consider proof of the technical 
malfunction and use its discretion in determining whether such relief is 
warranted.
12.  Privacy Considerations
(a)With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal 
information shall apply:
1. Social Security Numbers.  Pursuant to Administrative Order 
2006-2, full social security numbers shall not be included in any efilings.  If an individual’s social security number must be referenced in 
an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number may be used and 
the number specified in substantially the following format:  XXX-XX-
1234.
2. Names of Minor Children.  Unless named as a party or 
otherwise required by statute, court rule, or administrative order, the 
identity of minor children shall not be included in any e-filings.  If a 
non-party minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that 
child’s name may be used.
3. Dates of Birth.  Except as required by statute, court rule, or 
administrative order, an individual’s full birth date shall not be Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
included in any e-filings.  Subject to the above limitation, if an 
individual’s date of birth is otherwise referenced in an e-filing, only 
the year may be used and the date specified in substantially the 
following format:  XX/XX/1998.
4. Financial Account Numbers.  Full Financial account numbers 
shall not be included in any e-filings unless required by statute, court 
rule, or other authority.  If a financial account number must be 
referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of these numbers 
may be used and the number specified in substantially the following 
format: XXXXX1234.
5. Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal 
Identification Card Numbers.  A person’s full Driver’s license 
number and state-issued personal identification number shall not be 
included in any e-filings.  If an individual’s driver’s license number or 
state-issued personal identification card number must be referenced 
in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number should be used 
and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXXX-XXX-XX1-234.
6. Home Addresses.  With the exception of a self-represented 
party, full home addresses shall not be included in any e-filings.  If an 
individual’s home address must be referenced in an e-filing, only the 
city and state should be used.  For a party whose address has been 
made confidential by court order pursuant to MCR 3.203(F), the 
alternative address shall be treated as specified above. 
(b)Parties wishing to file  a complete personal data identifier listed above 
may:
1. Pursuant to and in accordance with court rules and 
administrative orders, file a motion to file a traditional paper version 
of the document under seal.  The Court may, in granting the motion 
to file the document under seal, still require that an e-filing that does 
not reveal the complete personal data identifier be filed for the public 
files.
OR
2. Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable court rules 
and administrative orders, obtain a court order to file a traditional 
paper reference list under seal.  The reference list shall contain the 
complete personal data identifiers and the redacted identifiers used in 
the e-filing.  All references in the case to the redacted identifiers 
included in the reference list shall be construed to refer to the 
corresponding complete personal data identifiers.  The reference list
must be filed under seal, and may be amended as of right.  
(c) Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or 
confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered 
above and listed below:Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
1. Medical records, treatment and diagnosis;
2. Employment history;
3. Individual financial information;
4. Insurance information;
5. Proprietary or trade secret information;
6. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and
7. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity.
(d)  These rules are designed to protect the private personal identifiers and 
information of individuals involved or referenced in actions before the Court.  
Nothing in these rules should be interpreted as authority for counsel or a self 
represented litigant to deny discovery to the opposing party under the umbrella of 
complying with these rules.  
13. Amendment
Procedural aspects of these rules may be amended upon the recommendation of 
the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the 
State Court Administrator.  Proposed substantive changes, including, for example, a 
proposed expansion of the program to permit additional case types and a proposed 
change in fees, must be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval.
14.  Financial data.  
Detailed financial data as defined in Administrative Order No. 2009-1, including 
costs generated and savings realized under the terms of this e-filing pilot project, 
shall be included in the Oakland Circuit Court’s annual report for submission to this 
Court.
15. Expiration
Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, 
requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating 
judges, shall continue until December 31, 2012 or further order of this court.  
Administrative Order No. 2010-4
Adoption of Administrative Order to Implement E-filing Pilot Project in the 
13
th
Judicial Circuit CourtAdministrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
On order of the Court, the 13
th
Circuit Court is authorized to implement an 
Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project.  The pilot project is established to study 
the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper 
filings.  The pilot project shall begin July 1, 2010, or as soon thereafter as is 
possible, and shall remain in effect until July 1, 2015, or further order of this Court.  
The 13
th
Circuit Court is aware that rules regarding electronic filing have been 
published for comment by this Court.  If this Court adopts electronic-filing rules 
during the pendency of the 13
th
Circuit Court Electronic Document Filing Pilot 
Project, the 13
th
Circuit Court will, within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, 
comply with the requirements of those rules.
The 13
th
Circuit Court will track the participation and effectiveness of this pilot 
program and shall report to and provide information as requested by the State 
Court Administrative Office.
1. Construction
The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically 
filing court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical 
determination of the actions involved in the pilot program.  The 13
th
Circuit Court 
may exercise its discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of 
error so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.  Except for matters 
related to electronically filing documents during the pilot program, the Michigan 
Rules of Court govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot.
2. Definitions
(a) “Clerk” means the Antrim, Grand Traverse and Leelanau County Clerks.
(b) “E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, 
judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to 
the pilot program.
(c) “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the 13
th
Judicial 
Circuit Court.
(d) “MCR” means the Michigan Court Rules.
(e) “Pilot program” means the initiative by the 13
th
Judicial Circuit Court, 
the 13
th
Circuits’ Clerks and the Grand Traverse Information 
Technology Department in conjunction with OnBase Software, and Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
under the supervision of the State Court Administrative Office.  This efiling application facilitates the electronic filing of pleadings, motions, 
briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and other 
documents.  All state courts in Michigan are envisioned as eventually 
permitting e-filing (with appropriate modifications and improvements).  
The 13
th
Circuit pilot program will begin testing with “C” or “N” type 
civil cases in Grand Traverse County.  The Court plans to expand the 
pilot program to Antrim and Leelanau Counties.  The pilot program is 
expected to last approximately five (5) years, beginning on July 1, 
2010.
(f) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other 
malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing 
or sending or receiving service of an e-filing.
3. Participation in the Pilot Program
(a) Participation in the pilot program shall be mandatory in all 
pending “C” or “N” type cases.  Participation shall be assigned 
following the filing and service of the initial complaint or other 
initial filing.  At the discretion of the judge, participation may 
also include postdisposition proceedings in qualifying case types.
(b) This is a mandatory e-filing project.  It is presumed that all 
documents will be filed electronically.  However, the Court 
recognizes that circumstances may arise that will prevent one 
from e-filing.  To ensure that all parties retain access to the 
courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to 
file their documents with the clerk, who will then file the 
documents electronically.  Among the factors that the 13
th
Circuit Court will consider in determining whether good cause 
exists to excuse a party from mandatory e-filing are a party’s 
access to the Internet and indigency.  A self-represented party 
is not excused from the project merely because the individual 
does not have counsel.
4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance and Time of Service with the Court; 
Signature
(a) In an effort to facilitate uniform service within the scope of this project, the 13
th
Circuit Court strongly recommends electronic service.
(b) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the pilot 
program’s technical requirements.  The clerk may, in accordance with MCR 
8.119(C) reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
2.113(C)(1), are not accompanied by the proper fees, clearly violate Administrative 
Order No. 2006-2, do not conform to the technical requirements of this pilot 
project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a statute, an MCR, an LAO, or the 
program rules.
(c)  E-filings may be submitted to the court at any time, but shall only be reviewed 
and accepted for filing by the clerk’s office during the normal business hours of 8 
a.m. to 5 p.m.  E-filings submitted after business hours shall be deemed filed on 
the business day the e-filing is accepted (usually the next business day).  The clerk 
shall process electronic submissions on a first-in, first-out basis.
(d) E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand-delivered to the court for all 
purposes under statute, the MCR, and the LAO.
(e) A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under this 
rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court clerk, attorney, party 
or declarant.
(i)Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form:  /s/ 
John L. Smith.
(ii) A document that requires a signature under the penalty of 
perjury is deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the 
declarant has signed a printed form of the document.
(iii) An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public 
is deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the 
notary public has signed a printed form of the document.
(f) The original of a sworn or verified document that is an efiling (e.g., a verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g. an 
affidavit, notarization, or bill of costs) must be maintained by 
the filing attorney and made available upon reasonable 
request of the court, the signatory, or opposing party.
(g)Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in 
accordance with the provisions of the pilot program.  The 
court and the clerk shall exchange the documents for review 
and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B).Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(h)By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer 
affirms compliance with these rules.
5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; 
Judge’s Copies, Hearings on Motions; Fees
(a) All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the 
applicable statute, the MCR and the LAO as if the e-filings were 
hand delivered.
(b) The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this 
pilot program satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy 
under MCR 2.119(A)(2).  Upon request by the court, the filing 
party shall promptly provide a traditional judge’s copy to 
chambers.
(c) Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be 
paid electronically through procedures established by the clerk’s 
office at the same time and in the same amount as required by 
statute, court rule, or administrative order.
(i) Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees.
Type of Filing Fee
EFO (e-filing only) $5
EFS (e-filing with 
service)
$8
SO (service only) $5
(ii) Users who use credit cards for payment are also 
responsible for a 3% user fee.
6. ServiceAdministrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(a) All parties shall provide the court and opposing parties with one 
e-mail address with the functionality required for the pilot 
program.  All service shall originate from and be perfected upon 
this e-mail address.
(b) Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all efilings must be served electronically to the e-mail addresses of 
all parties.  The subject matter line for the transmittal of 
document served by e-mail shall state:  “Service of e-filing in 
case [insert caption of case].”
(c) The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail 
service, e-filings may be served to the parties (but not the 
court) by facsimile or by traditional means.  For those choosing 
to accept facsimile service:
(i) the parties shall provide the court and the opposing 
parties with one facsimile number with appropriate 
functionality,
(ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which 
service may be made,
(iii) the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation 
delivery, and 
(iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 
2.406 on the use of facsimile communication 
equipment.
(d) Proof of Service shall be submitted to the 13
th
Circuit Court 
according to MCR 2.104 and these rules.
7. Format and Form of E-filing Service
(a) A party may only e-file documents for one case in each 
transaction.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(b) All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical 
requirements of the court’s vendor.
(c) Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be 
clearly designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment.
(d) All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on 
the parties in the same format and form as submitted to the 
court.
8. Pleadings, Motions and Documents not to be E-filed
The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot program and must be 
filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO:
(a) documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order),
(b) initiating documents, and 
(c) documents for case evaluation proceedings.
9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies
(a) For purposes of this pilot program, e-filings are the official court 
record.  An appellate record shall be certified in accordance with 
MCR 7.210(A)(1).
(b) Certified copies or true copies of e-filed documents shall be 
issued in the conventional manner by the clerk’s office in 
compliance with the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management 
Standards.
(c) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program does not 
continue as a pilot project or in some other format, the clerk 
shall convert all e-filings to paper format, the clerk shall convert 
all e-filings to paper form in accordance with MCR Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
8.119(D)(1)(d).  Participating attorneys shall provide reasonable 
assistance in constructing the paper record.
(d) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program continues 
as a pilot project or in another format, the clerk shall provide for 
record retention and public access in a manner consistent with 
the instructions of the court and the court rules.
10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments
At the court’s discretion, the court may issue, file, and serve orders, judgments and 
notices as e-filings.  Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the parties may agree to 
accept service from the court via facsimile pursuant to the procedures set forth in 
Rule 6(c).
11. Technical Malfunctions
(a) A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s 
equipment (such as Portable Document Format [PDF] 
conversion problems or inability to access the pilot sites), 
another party’s equipment (such as an inoperable e-mail 
address), or an apparent technical malfunction of the court’s 
pilot equipment, software, or server shall use reasonable efforts 
to timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall 
provide prompt notice to the court and the parties of any such 
malfunction.
(b) If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely 
filing, responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service 
of an e-filing, the affected party may petition the 13
th
Circuit 
Court for relief.  Such petition shall contain an adequate proof of 
the technical malfunction and set forth good cause for failure to 
use nonelectronic means to timely file or serve a document.  
The Court shall liberally consider proof of the technical 
malfunction and use its discretion in determining whether such 
relief is warranted.
12. Privacy Considerations
(a) With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for 
personal information shall apply:Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(i) Social Security Numbers.  Pursuant to 
Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full social 
security numbers shall not be included in e-filings.  
If an individual’s social security number must be 
referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of 
that number may be used and the number 
specified in substantially the following format:  
XXX-XX-1234.
(ii) Names of Minor Children.  Unless named as a 
party, the identity of minor children shall not be 
included in e-filings.  If a nonparty minor child 
must be mentioned, only the initials of that child’s 
name may be used.
(iii) Dates of Birth.  An individual’s full birthdate shall 
not be included in e-filings.  If an individual’s date 
of birth must be referenced in an e-filing, only the 
year may be used and the date specified in 
substantially the following format:  XX/XX/1998.
(iv) Financial Account Numbers.  Full financial account 
numbers shall not be included in e-filings unless 
required by statute, court rule, or other authority.  
If a financial account number must be referenced in 
an e-filing, only the last four digits of these 
numbers may be used and the number specified in 
substantially the following format:  XXXXX1234.
(v) Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued 
Personal Identification Card Numbers.  A person’s 
full driver’s license number and state-issued 
personal identification number shall not be included 
in e-filings.  If an individual’s driver’s license 
number or state-issued personal identification card 
number must be referenced in e-filing, only the last 
four digits of that number should be used and the 
number specified in substantially the following 
format X-XX-XXX-XX1-234.
(vi) Home Addresses.  With the exception of a selfrepresented party, full home addresses shall not be 
included in e-filings.  If an individual’s home Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
address must be referenced in an e-filing, only the 
city and state should be used.
(b) Parties wishing to file a complete personal data identifier listed 
above may:
(i) Pursuant to and in accordance with the MCR and the 
LAO, file a motion to file a traditional paper version of 
the document under seal.  The court, in granting the 
motion to file the document under seal, may still require 
that an e-filing that does not reveal the complete 
personal data identifier be filed for the public files.
or
(ii) Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR 
and LAO, obtain a court order to file a traditional paper 
reference list under seal.  The reference list shall 
contain the complete personal data identifiers and the 
redacted identifiers used in the e-filing.  All references 
in the case to the redacted identifiers included in the 
reference list shall be construed to refer to the 
corresponding complete personal data identifiers. The 
reference list must be filed under seal, and may be 
amended as of right.
(c) Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain 
private or confidential information, including, but not limited to, 
the information covered above and listed below:
(i) Medical records, treatment and diagnosis;
(ii) Employment history;
(iii) Individual financial information;
(iv) Insurance information
(v) Proprietary or trade secret information;Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(vi) Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the 
government; and
(vii) Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal 
activity.
13. Records and Reports:  Further, the 13
th
Circuit Court shall file an annual 
report with the Supreme Court covering the project to date by January 1 of each 
year (or more frequently or on another date as specified by the Court) that outlines 
the following:
(a) Detailed financial data that show the total amount of money 
collected in fees for documents filed or served under the pilot 
project to date, the original projections for collections of fees, 
and whether the projections have been met or exceeded.  
(b) Detailed financial information regarding the distribution or 
retention of collected fees, including the amount paid to each 
vendor per document and in total for the subject period, the 
amount retained by the Court per document and in total for the 
period, and whether the monies retained by the Court are in a 
separate account or commingled with other monies.
(c) A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to 
date and a statement of whether and when each cost will recur.
(d) A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the Court whether by 
reduced personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any 
cost savings to the Court are reflected in the fee structure 
charged to the parties.
(e) Information regarding how the filing and service fees were 
calculated and whether it is anticipated that those fees will be 
necessary and continued after the conclusion of the pilot 
program.
(f)A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and 
service-fee collections and expenditures for the upcoming 
periods.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
14. Amendment
These rules may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, 
the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the State Court Administrator.
15. Expiration
Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, 
requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating 
judges, shall continue until July 1, 2015.
Administrative Order No. 2010-5
29th Judicial Circuit Court Pilot Project No. 1 (Family Division Informal 
Docket for Low Conflict Domestic Relations Cases)
On order of the Court, the 29
th
Judicial Circuit Court is authorized to implement 
a domestic relations pilot project to test the effectiveness of an informal docket for 
selected domestic relations cases.  
The pilot project shall begin September 1, 2010, or as soon as an evaluator has 
been selected to evaluate the project, and shall continue for three years, or until 
further order of this Court.
If this Court adopts generally applicable Michigan Court Rules for informal 
dockets during the pendency of the pilot project, the 29
th
Judicial Circuit Court 
must, within 60 days of the effective date of the adopted rules, modify its 
procedures to comply with those new rules.
The 29
th
Judicial Circuit Court must collect and provide statistics and other 
information to the State Court Administrative Office and its retained evaluator to 
assist in evaluating the effectiveness of the project.  
1. Purpose of the Pilot Project
The purpose of the pilot project is to study the effectiveness of alternative, less 
formal procedures designed to help pro se domestic relations litigants use the 
judicial system more effectively, foster a cooperative ongoing relationship between 
the parties, and improve the court’s processing of domestic relations cases.
2. Participation
(a) The 29
th
Judicial Circuit Court shall issue a local administrative order that 
specifies one of the following criteria for creating a pool of pilot project cases and a Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
separate pool of comparison group cases: (i) selection based on case filing dates, 
(ii) selection of a specific number of filed cases that satisfy all the other project 
criteria, or (iii) selection by the presiding judge.
(b) The court shall select cases for participation as soon as possible after the 
filing and service of each complaint.  
(c) This is a voluntary project.  The court will not require parties to participate, 
but will offer the opportunity to all those who qualify.
3. Friend of the Court Settlement Conference  
After service of the complaint, the answer to complaint, and the summons, the 
court will refer pro se parties to the Friend of the Court Office for a settlement 
conference and the subsequent preparation of a recommended order for custody, 
parenting time, and child support.  During the conference, an FOC staff person will 
provide information about the pilot project and verify that the case meets all the 
selection criteria.  Eligible parties who agree to participate must sign a consent 
form. 
4. Hearings With the Assigned Family Division Judge
After the assignment clerk receives copies of both parties’ consent forms, the 
clerk will schedule the parties for an initial hearing with the presiding judge within 
30 days.  If either party objects to the FOC settlement conference recommended 
order, the objection will be heard at the initial hearing, provided that the objecting 
party has filed a written statement of those reasons and sent copies to the other 
party, the judge’s assignment clerk, the judge’s office, and the Friend of the Court.  
During the initial hearing, the judge and the parties must discuss the following 
issues, as applicable to each case:  
• Unresolved disputes.
• Possible evidence.
• Possible witnesses.
• The schedule for subsequent hearings.
1
• Any property settlement agreements.  If the parties have not yet agreed on 
the division of all the marital property, the court may grant an extension.
• The procedure for preparing and entering a judgment of divorce, including 
which party will prepare the judgment. 
The Assigned Family Division Judge will explain the conference-style hearing to 
both parties at the initial hearing.  Both parties must agree in court on the record to 
the use of the conference-style hearing.  If the parties do not agree to use 
conference-style hearing, the parties may still participate in the informal docket 
project and use informal evidentiary rules and procedures
                                      
1
At the initial settlement conference with the Friend of the Court, parties will 
receive motion forms, including a form to request removal of the domestic relations 
case from the project, and a judgment of divorce form. Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
For pilot project cases, conference-style hearings will be conducted.  Both 
parties and all witnesses will be sworn in.  The hearings will be recorded.  Either 
party may present evidence.  Either party or the judge may ask questions. 
If there is more than one unresolved issue, the judge will instruct the parties to 
discuss each issue individually and then facilitate the parties’ discussions.  Although 
parties will have an opportunity to question each other, the parties may ask only 
issue-clarifying questions.  The judge may allow or reject each question.
All witnesses must testify in a similar manner.  They may provide narrative 
testimony.  The parties and the judge may question the witnesses.  The judge may 
allow conversations between the parties and the witnesses.
If the court determines the case should be removed from the pilot project for 
any reason, the court will state the reasons on the record. Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
Administrative Order No. 2010-6
E-filing Pilot Project in the 16
th
Circuit Court (Macomb County)
On order of the Court, the 16th Circuit Court is authorized to implement an 
Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project. The pilot project is established to study the 
effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper 
filings. The pilot project shall begin on January 1, 2011, or as soon thereafter as is 
possible, and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2012, or further order of this 
Court. The 16th Circuit Court is aware that rules regarding electronic filing have 
been published for comment by this Court. If this Court adopts electronic-filing 
rules during the pendency of the 16th Circuit Court Electronic Document Filing Pilot 
Project, the 16th Circuit Court will, within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, 
comply with the requirements of those rules. The 16th Circuit Court will track the 
participation and effectiveness of this pilot program and shall report to and provide 
information as requested by the State Court Administrative Office.
1.  Construction
The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing 
court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination 
of the actions involved in the pilot program. The Sixteenth Circuit Court may 
exercise its discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error 
so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.  Except for matters related 
to electronically filing documents during the pilot program, the Michigan Rules of 
Court govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot.
2.  Definitions
a. “Clerk” means the Macomb County Clerk.
b. “E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, 
judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to the pilot 
program.
c. “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the Sixteenth Judicial 
Circuit Court.
d. “MCR” means the Michigan Rules of Court.
e. “Pilot program” means the initiative by the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court, 
the Macomb County Clerk/Register of Deeds, and the Macomb County 
Information Technology Department in conjunction with Vista Solutions 
Group, LP, and under the supervision of the State Court Administrative 
Office. This e-filing application facilitates the electronic filing of pleadings, 
motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and other 
documents. All state courts in Michigan are envisioned as eventually 
permitting e-filing (with appropriate modifications and improvements). The 
Macomb County pilot program will begin testing with two circuit judges with 
“C” and “N” type civil cases. The court plans to expand the pilot program to 
all circuit judges. The pilot program is expected to last approximately two Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
years, beginning on January 1, 2011, and will be implemented in phases as 
described below.
f. “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other malfunction 
that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or 
receiving service of an e-filing.
3.  Participation in the Pilot Program
a. Participation in the pilot program shall be mandatory in all pending “C” or “N” 
case types assigned to participating circuit judges. Participation shall be 
assigned following the filing and service of the initial complaint or other initial 
filing and assignment of the case to a participating judge. At the discretion of 
the judge, participation may also include post-disposition proceedings in 
qualifying case types assigned to participating judges.  The pilot will be 
implemented in phases as follows:
i.Phase 1:  The Macomb County pilot program will begin with Civil/Criminal 
Division civil cases wherein the case suffix begins with a “C” or an “N” 
with two judges.
ii. Phase 2:  Three additional Civil/Criminal Division judges will be added to 
the pilot within six months after the pilot has begun.
iii. Phase 3:  The remaining Civil/Criminal Division judges will be added 
within three months after Phase 2 has begun.
iv. Phase 4:  The remaining civil cases will be added to the pilot within three 
months after Phase 3 has begun upon approval by the Michigan Supreme 
Court.
b. This is a mandatory e-filing project. It is presumed that all documents will be 
filed electronically. However, the Court recognizes that circumstances may 
arise that will prevent a party from e-filing. To ensure that all parties retain 
access to the courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted 
to file their documents with the Clerk, who will then file the documents 
electronically. Among the factors that the Sixteenth Circuit Court will 
consider in determining whether good cause exists to excuse a party from 
mandatory e-filing are a party’s access to the Internet and indigency. A selfrepresented party is not excused from the project merely because the 
individual does not have counsel.
4.  E-filings Submission, Acceptance, and Time of Service with the Court; Signature
a. In an effort to facilitate uniform service within the scope of this project, the 
Sixteenth Circuit Court strongly recommends electronic service.
b. Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the 
pilot program’s technical requirements. The Clerk may, in accordance with 
MCR 8.119(C), reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with 
MCR 2.113(C)(1), are not accompanied by the proper fees, clearly violate 
Administrative Order No. 2006-2, do not conform to the technical 
requirements of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a 
statute, an MCR, an LAO, or the program rules.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
c. E-filings may be submitted to the Court around the clock (with the exception 
of periodic maintenance).  E-filings submitted after the close of normal 
business hours (which is currently 4:30 p.m.) shall be deemed filed on the 
next business day.  Although the system may be used on a 24-hour basis, 
technical support will generally only be available during regular business 
hours.    
d. E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand-delivered to the court for all 
purposes under statute, the MCR, and the LAO.
e. A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under 
this rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court clerk, 
attorney, party, or declarant.
i.Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form: /s/ John L. 
Smith.
ii. A document that requires a signature under the penalty of perjury is 
deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the declarant has signed 
a printed form of the document.
iii. An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public is 
deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the notary public has 
signed a printed form of the document.
f. The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a 
verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g., an affidavit, notarization, or bill 
of costs) must be maintained by the filing attorney and made available upon 
reasonable request of the court, the signatory, or opposing party.
g. Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the 
provisions of the pilot program. The court and the clerk shall exchange the 
documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B).
h. By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer indicates compliance 
with these rules.
5.  Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; Judge’s 
Copies; Hearings on Motions; Fees
a. All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the applicable 
statute, the MCR and the LAO as if the e-filings were hand-delivered.
b. Where a praecipe is required, it must be e-filed along with the documents 
that require the praecipe, unless another court-approved mechanism is 
approved and used by the filer.
c. The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this pilot program 
satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy under MCR 2.119(A)(2). 
Upon request by the Court, the filing party shall promptly provide a 
traditional judge’s copy to chambers.
d. Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be paid 
electronically through procedures established by the Macomb County Clerk’s Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
Office at the same time and in the same amount as required by statute, 
court rule, or administrative order.
i.Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees:
(1)EFO (e-filing only) $5.00
(2)EFS (e-filing with service) $8.00
(3)SO (service only) $5.00
ii. Users who use credit cards for payment may also be responsible for a 
user fee not to exceed 3 percent.
6.  Service
a. All parties shall provide the court and opposing parties with one e-mail 
address with the functionality required for the pilot program. All service shall 
originate from and be perfected upon this e-mail address.
b. Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all e-filings must be 
served electronically to the e-mail addresses of all parties. The subject 
matter line for the transmittal of document served by e-mail shall state: 
“Service of e-filing in case [insert caption of case].”
c. The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail service, e-filings 
may be served to the parties (but not the court) by facsimile or by traditional 
means. For those choosing to accept facsimile service:
i.the parties shall provide the court and the opposing parties with one 
facsimile number with appropriate functionality,
ii. the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service may be 
made,
iii. the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of delivery, and
iv. parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use of 
facsimile communication equipment.
d. Proof of Service shall be submitted to the 16th Circuit Court according to 
MCR 2.107(D) and these rules.
7.  Format and Form of E-filing and Service
a. A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction.
b. All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements of 
the court’s vendor.
c. Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly 
designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment.
d. All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the parties 
in the same format and form as submitted to the court.
8.  Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filedAdministrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot program and must be 
filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO:
a. initiating documents, and
b. documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order). 
9.  Official Court Record; Certified Copies
a. For purposes of this pilot program, e-filings are the official court record. An 
appellate record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1).
b. Certified or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the 
conventional manner by the Macomb County Clerk’s Office in compliance with 
the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards.
c. At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program does not continue as a 
pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to 
paper form in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d). Participating attorneys 
shall provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record.
d. At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program continues as a pilot 
project or in another format, the Clerk shall provide for record retention and 
public access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the court and 
the court rules.
10.  Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments
At the court’s discretion, the court may issue, file, and serve orders, judgments, 
and notices as e-filings. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the parties may agree 
to accept service from the court via facsimile pursuant to the procedures set forth 
in Rule 6(c).
11.  Technical Malfunctions
a. A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment 
(such as Portable Document Format [PDF] conversion problems or inability to 
access the pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such as an inoperable email address), or an apparent technical malfunction of the court’s pilot 
equipment, software, or server shall use reasonable efforts to timely file or 
receive service by traditional methods and shall provide prompt notice to the 
court and the parties of any such malfunction.
b. If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, 
responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, the 
affected party may petition the 16
th
Circuit Court for relief. Such petition shall 
contain an adequate proof of the technical malfunction and set forth good 
cause for failure to use non-electronic means to timely file or serve a 
document. The court shall liberally consider proof of the technical malfunction 
and use its discretion in determining whether such relief is warranted.
12.  Privacy Considerations (Personal Identifiers)
a. With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal 
information shall apply for the following personal identifiers:Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
i.Social Security Numbers: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full 
social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s 
social security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four 
digits of that number may be used and the number specified in the 
following format: XXX-XX-1234.
ii. Names of Minor Children: Unless named as a party, the identity of minor 
children shall not be included in e-filings. If a non-party minor child must 
be mentioned, only the initials of that child’s name may be used.
iii. Dates of Birth: An individual’s full birth date shall not be included in efilings. If an individual’s date of birth must be referenced in an e-filing, 
only the year may be used and the date specified in the following format: 
XX/XX/1998.
iv. Financial Account Numbers: Full financial account numbers shall not be 
included in e-filings unless required by statute, court rule, or other 
authority. If a financial account number must be referenced in an e-filing, 
only the last four digits of these numbers may be used and the number 
specified in substantially the following format: XXXXX1234.
v. Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal Identification Card 
Numbers: A person’s full driver’s license number and state issued 
personal identification number shall not be included in e-filings. If an 
individual’s driver’s license number or state-issued personal identification 
card number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of 
that number should be used and the number specified in substantially the 
following format: X-XXXXXX-XX1-234.
vi. Home Addresses: With the exception of a self-represented party, full 
home addresses shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s home 
address must be referenced in an e-filing, only the city and state should 
be used.
b. Parties wishing to file a pleading containing a complete personal data 
identifier as listed above may: 
i.Pursuant to and in accordance with the MCR and the LAO, file a motion to 
file a traditional paper version of the document under seal. The court, in 
granting the motion to file the document under seal, may still require that 
an e-filing that does not reveal the complete personal data identifier be 
filed for the public files; or, 
ii. Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR and LAO, obtain a 
court order to file a traditional paper reference list under seal. The 
reference list shall contain the complete personal data identifiers and the 
redacted identifiers used in the e-filing. All references in the case to the 
redacted identifiers included in the reference list shall be construed to 
refer to the corresponding complete personal data identifiers. The 
reference list must be filed under seal, and may be amended as of right.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
c. Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or 
confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information 
covered above and listed below:
i.Medical records, treatment and diagnosis;
ii. Employment history;
iii. Individual financial information;
iv. Insurance information;
v. Proprietary or trade secret information
vi. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; 
and,
vii. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity.
13.  Records and Reports:  Further, the 16
th
Circuit Court shall file an annual 
report with the Supreme Court covering the project to date by January 1 of each 
year (or more frequently or on another date as specified by the Court) that 
outlines the following:
a. Detailed financial data that show the total amount of money collected in fees 
for documents filed or served under the pilot project to date, the original 
projections for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been 
met or exceeded.  
b. Detailed financial information regarding the distribution or retention of 
collected fees, including the amount paid to each vendor per document and 
in total for the subject period, the amount retained by the Court per 
document and in total for the period, and whether the monies retained by the 
Court are in a separate account or commingled with other monies.
c. A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a 
statement of whether and when each cost will recur.
d. A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the Court whether by reduced 
personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the 
Court are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties.
e. Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and 
whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after 
the conclusion of the pilot program.
f. A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee 
collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods.
14.  Amendment
These rules may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, 
the approval of the Chief Judge, and authorization by the State Court Administrator.
15.  ExpirationAdministrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, 
requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating 
judges, shall continue until December 31, 2012.
Administrative Order No. 2011-1
[Entered February 1, 2011, amended June 28, 2011]
E-filing Pilot Project in the 3
rd
Circuit Court (Wayne County)
On order of the Court, the 3rd Circuit Court is authorized to implement an 
Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project. The pilot project is established to study the 
effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper 
filings. The pilot project shall begin January 1, 2011, or as soon thereafter as is 
possible, and shall remain in effect until July 1, 2015, or further order of this Court. 
The 3rd Circuit Court is aware that rules regarding electronic filing have been 
published for comment by this Court. If this Court adopts electronic-filing rules 
during the pendency of the 3rd Circuit Court Electronic Document Filing Pilot 
Project, the 3rd Circuit Court will, within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, 
comply with the requirements of those rules. 
The 3rd Circuit Court will track the participation and effectiveness of this pilot 
program and shall report to and provide information as requested by the State 
Court Administrative Office. 
1. Construction
The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing 
court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination 
of the actions involved in the pilot program. The 3rd Circuit Court may exercise its 
discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to 
affect the substantial rights of the parties. Except for matters related to 
electronically filing or service of documents during the pilot program, the Michigan 
Rules of Court govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot. 
2. Definitions 
(a) "Clerk" means the Wayne County Clerk. 
(b) "E-filing" means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, 
judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to the pilot 
program. Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(c) "LAO" means all local administrative orders governing the 3rd Judicial Circuit 
Court. 
(d) "MCR" means the Michigan Court Rules. 
(e) "Pilot Program" means the initiative by the 3rd Judicial Circuit Court, and the 
Wayne County Clerk in conjunction with Tyler Technologies, Inc., and under the 
supervision of the State Court Administrative Office to facilitate the electronic filing 
of pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and 
other documents.  The Pilot Program will begin testing with all pending cases in the 
“CK” case type.  The 3rd Circuit Court and the Wayne County Clerk plan to expand 
the testing into the remainder of case types in the Civil Division upon approval by 
the Supreme Court.
(f) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other malfunction 
that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or receiving 
service of an e-filing.
3. Participation in the Pilot Program 
(a) Participation in the pilot project shall be mandatory in all pending “CK” type 
cases. All judges in the 3
rd
Circuit Court’s Civil Division shall participate. Expansion 
into the other Civil Division case types will occur after approval by the Supreme 
Court. 
(b) This is a mandatory e-filing project. It is presumed that all documents will be 
filed electronically. However, the Court recognizes that circumstances may arise 
that will prevent one from e-filing. To ensure that all parties retain access to the 
courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file their 
documents with the clerk, who will then file the documents electronically. Among 
the factors that the 3rd Circuit Court will consider in determining whether good 
cause exists to excuse a party from mandatory e-filing is a party's access to the 
Internet and indigency. A self-represented party is not excused from the project 
merely because the individual does not have counsel. 
4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance and Time of Service with the Court; 
Signature 
(a) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the pilot 
project’s technical requirements. The clerk may, in accordance with MCR 8.119(C), 
reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR 2.113(C)(1), are 
not accompanied by the proper fees, do not conform to the technical requirements 
of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a statute, an MCR, an 
LAO, or the program rules.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(b) E-filings may be submitted to the court at any time, but shall only be reviewed 
and accepted for filing by the clerk's office during the normal business hours of 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. E-filings submitted after business hours shall be deemed 
filed on the business day the e-filing is accepted (usually the next business day). 
The clerk shall process e-filings on a first-in, first-out basis.
(c) E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand-delivered to the court for all 
purposes under statute, the MCR, and the LAO.
(d) A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under this 
rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court clerk, attorney, party, 
or declarant.
(i) Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form: /s/ John L. 
Smith.
(ii) A document that requires a signature under penalty of perjury is deemed 
signed by the declarant if, before filing, the declarant has signed a printed form of 
the document.
(iii) An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public is deemed 
signed by the notary public if, before filing, the notary public has signed a printed 
form of the document.
(e) The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a verified 
pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g., an affidavit, notarization, or bill of costs) must 
be maintained by the filing attorney and made available upon reasonable request of 
the court, the signatory, or opposing party.
(f) Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the 
provisions of the pilot project. The court and the clerk shall exchange the 
documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B).
(g) By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer affirms compliance with 
these rules.
5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; 
Judge's Copies, Hearings on Motions; Fees Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(a) All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the applicable 
statute, the MCR, and the LAO as if the e-filings were hand-delivered.
(b) The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this pilot project 
satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy under MCR 2.119(A)(2). Upon 
request by the court, the filing party shall promptly provide a traditional judge’s 
copy to chambers.
(c) Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be paid 
electronically through procedures established by the clerk at the same time and in 
the same amount as required by statute, court rule, or administrative order.
(i) Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees:
Type of Filing Fee
EFO (e-filing only) $5.00
EFS (e-filing with service)$8.00
SO (service only)  $5.00
(ii) Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 3% user fee.
6. Service
(a) All parties shall provide the court and opposing parties with one e-mail address 
with the functionality required for the pilot project. All service shall originate from 
and be perfected upon this e-mail address.
(b) Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all e-filings must be 
served electronically to the e-mail addresses of all parties. The subject matter line 
for the transmittal of document served by e-mail shall state: “Service of e-filing in 
case [insert caption of case].”
(c) The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail service, e-filings 
may be served to the parties (but not the court) by facsimile or by traditional 
means. For those choosing to accept facsimile service:
(i) the parties shall provide the court and the opposing parties with one facsimile 
number with appropriate functionality,Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service may be made,
(iii) the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of delivery, and
(iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use of facsimile 
communication equipment.
(d) Proof of service shall be submitted to the 3rd Circuit Court according to MCR 
2.107(D) and this administrative order.
(e) Service of the complaint or third party complaint must be performed in 
accordance with the MCR and statutes.
7. Format and Form of E-filing and Service
(a) A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction.
(b) All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements of the 
court’s vendor.
(c) Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly designated 
and identified as an exhibit or attachment.
(d) All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the parties in 
the same format and form as submitted to the court.
(e) All documents filed electronically shall be in electronically generated text format 
(such as native portable digital format (PDF)) so that the text of the submission is 
searchable and taggable.  Any attachments and exhibits that are not available as 
electronically generated text may be scanned.
(f) When a filing includes grouped documents (i.e., a motion and accompanying 
exhibits or attachments) each such document shall be separately bookmarked by 
an identifying tab.
8. Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filedAdministrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot project and must be 
filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO:
(a) documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order), and
(b) documents for case evaluation proceedings.
9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies
(a) For purposes of this pilot project, e-filings are the official court record. An 
appellate record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1).
(b) Certified or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the conventional 
manner by the clerk in compliance with the Michigan Trial Court Case File 
Management Standards.
(c) At the conclusion of the pilot project, if the program does not continue as a pilot 
project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to paper form in 
accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d). Participating attorneys shall provide 
reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record.
(d) At the conclusion of the pilot project, if the program continues as a pilot project 
or in another format, the clerk shall provide for record retention and public access 
in a manner consistent with the instructions of the Court and the court rules.
10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments
At the court’s discretion, the court may issue, file, and serve orders, judgments, 
and notices as e-filings. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the parties may agree 
to accept service from the court via facsimile pursuant to the procedures set forth 
in Section 6(c) above.
11. Technical Malfunctions
(a) A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment (such 
as format or conversion problems or inability to access the pilot sites), another 
party’s equipment (such as an inoperable e-mail address), or an apparent technical 
malfunction of the court’s pilot equipment, software, or server shall use reasonable 
efforts to timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall provide 
prompt notice to the court and the parties of any such malfunction.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(b) If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, responding 
to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, the affected party may 
petition the 3rd Circuit Court for relief. Such petition shall contain an adequate 
proof of the technical malfunction and set forth good cause for failure to use nonelectronic means to timely file or serve a document. The court shall liberally 
consider proof of the technical malfunction and use its discretion in determining 
whether such relief is warranted.
12. Privacy Considerations
(a) With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal information 
shall apply:
(i) Social Security Numbers. Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full 
social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s social 
security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that 
number may be used and the number specified in substantially the following 
format: XXX-XX-1234.
(ii) Names of Minor Children. Unless named as a party, the identity of a minor child 
shall not be included in e-filings. If a nonparty minor child must be mentioned, only 
the initials of that child’s name may be used.
(iii) Dates of Birth. An individual’s full birth date shall not be included in e-filings. If 
an individual’s date of birth must be referenced in an e-filing, only the year may be 
used and the date specified in substantially the following format: XX/XX/1998.
(iv) Financial Account Numbers. Full financial account numbers shall not be included 
in e-filings unless required by statute, court rule, or other authority. If a financial 
account number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of these 
numbers may be used and the number specified in substantially the following 
format: XXXXX1234.
(v) Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal Identification Card 
Numbers. A person’s full driver’s license number and state-issued personal 
identification number shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s driver’s 
license number or state-issued personal identification card number must be 
referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number should be used and 
the number specified in substantially the following format: X-XXX-XXX-XX1-234.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(vi) Home Addresses. With the exception of a self-represented party, full home 
addresses shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s home address must be 
referenced in an e-filing, only the city and state shall be used.
(b) Parties wishing to file a complete personal data identifier listed above may:
(i) Pursuant to and in accordance with the MCR and/or the LAO, file a motion to file 
a traditional paper version of the document under seal. The court, in granting the 
motion to file the document under seal, may still require that an e-filing that does 
not reveal the complete personal data identifier be filed for the public files, or
(ii) Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR and LAO, obtain a court 
order to file a traditional paper reference list under seal. The reference list shall 
contain the complete personal data identifiers and the redacted identifiers used in 
the e-filing. All references in the case to the redacted identifiers included in the 
reference list shall be construed to refer to the corresponding complete personal 
data identifiers. The reference list must be filed under seal, and may be amended 
as of right.
(c) Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or 
confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered 
above and listed below:
(i) Medical records, treatment and diagnosis;
(ii) Employment history;
(iii) Individual financial information;
(iv) Insurance information;
(v) Proprietary or trade secret information;
(vi) Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and
(vii) Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
13. Records and Reports
The 3rd Circuit Court shall file an annual report with the Supreme Court covering 
the project to date by January 1 of each year (or more frequently or on another 
date as specified by the Court) that outlines the following:
(a) Detailed financial data that show the total amount of money collected in fees for 
documents filed or served under the pilot project to date, the original projections 
for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been met or exceeded.
(b) Detailed financial information regarding the distribution or retention of collected 
fees, including the amount paid to Tyler per document and in total for the subject 
period, the amount retained by the court per document and in total for the period, 
and whether the monies retained by the court are in a separate account or 
commingled with other monies.
(c) A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a 
statement of whether and when each cost will recur.
(d) A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the court whether by reduced 
personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the court 
are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties.
(e) Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and 
whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after the 
conclusion of the pilot program.
(f) A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee 
collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods.
14. Amendment
Procedural aspects of these rules may be amended upon the recommendation of 
the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the 
State Court Administrator.  Proposed substantive changes, including, for example, a 
proposed expansion of the program to permit additional case types and a proposed 
change in fees, must be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval.
15. ExpirationAdministrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot project, 
requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating 
judges, shall continue until July 15, 2015.
Administrative Order No. 2011-2
[Entered June 30, 2011]
Rescission of Administrative Order No. 2002-1 (Dissolution of the Child 
Support Leadership Council)
On order of the Court, Administrative Order No. 2002-1 is rescinded, effective 
immediately.
Administrative Order No. 2011-3
[Entered August 17, 2011]
Rescission of Administrative Order No. 2003-7 and Adoption of 
Administrative Order No. 2011-3 (Caseflow Management Guidelines)
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for 
comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and 
consideration having been given to the comments received, Administrative Order 
No. 2003-7 is rescinded and the following administrative order is adopted, effective 
September 1, 2011.
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;Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
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.  The trial courts shall not dismiss cases for the sole reason that the 
case is likely to exceed the guideline.  In addition, these guidelines do not supplant 
judicial discretion if, for good cause, a specific case of any type requires a time line 
that extends beyond the maximum permitted under these guidelines.
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.  
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 or 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.  
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 and 100% within 364 days.
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 and 100% within 728 days.
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 and 100% within 455 days.
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.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
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 and 100% within 126 days.
b. Felony and Extradition/Detainer. 80% of all preliminary examinations in felony, 
felony drunk driving, felony traffic, and extradition/detainer cases should be 
concluded within 14 days of arraignment and 100% within 28 days.
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 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 and 100% within 728 days.
2. Domestic Relations Proceedings.
a. Divorce Without Children. 90% of all divorce cases without children should be 
adjudicated within 182 days from the date of case filing and 100% within 364 days. 
b. Divorce With Children. 90% of all divorce cases with children should be 
adjudicated within 301 days from the date of case filing 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 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.
e. 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 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 and 100% within 210 days.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
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 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 126 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 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.
With SCAO approval, circuit courts may establish by local administrative order an 
alternative guideline for criminal proceedings that would provide that 90% of all 
felony cases should be adjudicated within 154 days from the date of entry of the 
order binding the defendant over to the circuit court and 100% within 301 days.  
Incarcerated persons should be afforded priority for trial.  Courts requesting the Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
alternative guideline must give the sheriff the opportunity to comment on the 
proposed order.
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.
Administrative Order No. 2011-4
[Entered September 22, 2011]
E-filing Pilot Project in the 20
th
Circuit Court, the Ottawa County Probate 
Court, and the 58
th
District Court (Ottawa County)
On order of the Court, the 20
th
Circuit Court, the Ottawa County Probate Court, 
and the 58
th
District Court (hereafter Ottawa County or participating courts) are 
authorized to implement an Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project.  The pilot 
project is established to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court 
documents in lieu of traditional paper filings.  The pilot project shall begin October 
1, 2011, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and shall remain in effect until 
December 31, 2016, or further order of this Court.  The participating courts are 
aware that rules regarding electronic filing have been published for comment by 
this Court.  If this Court adopts electronic filing rules during the pendency of Ottawa 
County’s Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project, the participating courts will, 
within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, comply with the requirements of 
those rules.
The participating courts will track the participation and effectiveness of this pilot 
program and shall report to and provide relevant information as requested by the 
State Court Administrative Office.
1. Construction
The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing 
court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination 
of the actions involved in the pilot program.  The participating courts may exercise 
discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to 
affect the substantial rights of the parties.  Except for matters related to 
electronically filing documents during the pilot program, the Michigan Rules of Court 
govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot project.
2. DefinitionsAdministrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
a. “Clerk” means the Ottawa County Clerk and clerks of the participating courts.
b. “E-Filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, 
judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to the pilot 
program.
c. “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the participating courts.
d. “MCR” means the Michigan Court Rules.
e. “Pilot program” means the e-filing initiative of the participating courts, the 
County Clerk, and the Ottawa County Information Technology Department in 
conjunction with ImageSoft, Inc., and under the supervision of the State Court 
Administrative Office.  This e-filing application facilitates the electronic filing of 
pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and 
other documents.  The 20
th
Circuit pilot program will begin testing with civil case 
types ND, NF, NH, NI, NM, NO, NP, NS, NZ, CB, CC, CD, CE, CF, CH, CK, CL, CP, 
CR, CZ, PC, PD, PR, PS, PZ and domestic relations case types DC, DM, DO, DP, 
DS, DZ, UD, UE, UF, UI, UM, UN, UT, UW; the Ottawa County Probate Court will 
begin testing with civil case type CZ; and the 58
th
District Court will begin 
testing with general civil case type GC.
f. “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other malfunction 
that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or receiving 
service of an e-filing.
g. “Web-based portal” means a website provided by ImageSoft where electronic 
filings may be submitted and delivered to the participating courts’ OnBase 
workflow.
3. Participation in the Pilot Program
a. Participation in Ottawa County’s pilot program is elective for all case types 
identified in Section 2.e., above.  Participation may be initiated with new case 
filings or existing case files.  At the discretion of the judge, participation may also 
include postdisposition proceedings in qualifying case types.
b. This is a voluntary e-filing project; however, once a case is designated as part 
of the e-filing project, it is presumed that all further documents will be filed 
electronically.  Ottawa County recognizes that circumstances may arise preventing 
one from e-filing.  To ensure all parties retain access to the participating courts, 
parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file documents with the 
clerk, who will then file the documents electronically.  Among the factors the 
participating courts will consider in determining whether good cause exists to 
excuse a party from e-filing is a party’s access to the Internet.
4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance and Time of Service with the Court; 
Signature
a. In an effort to facilitate uniform service within the scope of this project, the 
participating courts strongly recommend electronic service.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
b. Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the pilot 
program’s technical requirements.  The clerk may, in accordance with MCR 
8.119(C) reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR 
2.113(C)(1), are not accompanied by the proper fees, clearly violate Administrative 
Order No. 2006-2 (Privacy Policy), do not conform to the requirements of this pilot 
project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a statute, MCR, LAO, or program 
rules.
c. E-filings may be submitted to the participating courts at any time, but shall only 
be reviewed and accepted for filing by the clerk’s office during the normal business 
hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.  E-filings submitted after business hours shall be deemed 
filed on the business day the e-filing is accepted (usually the next business day).  
The clerk shall process electronic submissions on a first-in, first-out basis.
d. E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand-delivered to the participating 
courts for all purposes under statute, MCR, and LAO.
e. A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under this 
order shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court clerk, attorney, 
party, or declarant.
i. Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form: /s/ John L. 
Smith.
ii. A document that requires a signature under the penalty of perjury is 
deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the declarant has signed a 
printed form of the document.
iii. An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public is deemed 
signed by the notary public if, before filing, the notary public has signed a 
printed form of the document.
f. The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a verified 
pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g., an affidavit, notarization, or bill of costs) must 
be maintained by the filing attorney and made available upon reasonable request of 
the participating courts, the signatory, or opposing party.
g. Proposed orders shall be submitted to the participating courts in accordance 
with the provisions of the pilot program.  The participating courts and the clerk shall 
exchange the documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B).
h. By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer affirms compliance with 
these rules.
5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; 
Judge’s Copies, Hearings on Motions; Fees
a. All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the applicable 
statute, MCR, and LAO as if the e-filings were hand-delivered.
b. The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this pilot program 
satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy under MCR 2.119(A)(2).  Upon Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
request by the participating courts, the filing party shall promptly provide a 
traditional judge’s copy to chambers.
c. Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be paid 
electronically through procedures established by the clerk’s office at the same time 
and in the same amount as required by statute, MCR, or LAO.
i. Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees:
1. EFO (e-filing only) $4.00
2. EFS (e-filing with service)$7.00
3. SO (service only) $4.00
d. Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 3% user fee 
to reimburse the participating courts for credit card transaction costs.
6. Service
a. All parties shall provide the participating courts and opposing parties with one 
e-mail address with the functionality required for the pilot program.  All service 
shall originate from and be perfected upon this e-mail address.
b. Alternatively, all parties shall register their e-mail addresses within the webbased portal and all documents filed within the web-based portal relating to the 
case will be served to the registered e-mail address.
c. Unless otherwise agreed to by the participating courts and the parties, all efilings must be served electronically to the e-mail addresses of all parties.  The 
subject matter line for the transmittal of the document served by e-mail shall state: 
“Service of e-filing in case [insert caption of case].”
d. The parties and the participating courts may agree that, instead of e-mail 
service, e-filings may be served to the parties (but not the participating courts) by 
facsimile or by traditional means.  For those choosing to accept facsimile service:
i. the parties shall provide the participating courts and the opposing parties 
with one facsimile number with appropriate functionality,
ii. the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service may be 
made,
iii. the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation delivery, and
iv. parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use of 
facsimile communication equipment.
e. Proof of service shall be submitted to the participating courts according to MCR 
2.107(D) and this order.
7. Format and Form of E-filing Service
a. A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
b. All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements of the 
participating courts’ vendor.
c. Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly designated 
and identified as an exhibit or attachment.
d. All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(d) above, shall be served on the parties in 
the same format and form as submitted to the participating courts.
8. Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filed
The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot program and must be 
filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO:
a. documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order) and
b. documents for case evaluation proceedings.
9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies
a. For purposes of this pilot program, e-filings are the official court record.  An 
appellate record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1).
b. Certified copies or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the 
conventional manner by the clerk’s office in compliance with the Michigan Trial 
Court Case File Management Standards.
c. At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program does not continue as a 
pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to paper 
format in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d).  Participating attorneys shall 
provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record.
d. At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program continues as a pilot 
project or in another format, the clerk shall provide for record retention and public 
access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the participating courts and 
the MCR.
10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments
At the participating court’s discretion, the participating court may issue, file, and 
serve orders, judgments, and notices as e-filings.  Pursuant to a stipulation and 
order, the parties may agree to accept service from the participating courts via 
facsimile pursuant to the procedures set forth in Rule 6(d) of this order.
11. Technical Malfunction
a. A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment (such 
as a Portable Document Format [PDF] conversion problems or inability to access 
the pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such an inoperable e-mail address), or 
an apparent technical malfunction of the participating court’s pilot equipment, Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
software, or server shall use reasonable efforts to timely file or receive service by 
traditional methods and shall provide prompt notice to the participating courts and 
the parties of any such malfunction.
b. If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, responding 
to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, the affected party may 
petition the participating courts for relief.  Such petition shall contain adequate 
proof of the technical malfunction and set forth good cause for failure to use nonelectronic means to timely file or serve a document.  The participating courts shall 
liberally consider proof of the technical malfunction and use discretion in 
determining whether such relief is warranted.
12. Privacy Considerations
a. With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal information 
shall apply:
i. Social Security Numbers.  Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full 
social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings.  If an individual’s 
social security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four 
digits of that number may be used and the number specified in substantially 
the following format: XXX-XX-1234.
ii. Names of Minor Children.  Unless named as a party, the identity of minor 
children shall not be included in e-filings.  If a non-party minor child must be 
mentioned, only the initials of the child’s name may be used.
iii. Dates of Birth.  An individual’s full birthdate shall not be included in efilings.
 If an individual’s date of birth must be referenced in an e-filing, only 
the year may be used and the date specified in substantially the following 
format: XX/XX/1998.
iv. Financial Account Numbers.  Full financial account numbers shall not be 
included in e-filings unless required by statute, MCR, or other authority.  If a 
financial account number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four 
digits of the number may be used and the number specified in substantially the 
following format: XXXXX1234.
v. Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal Identification Card 
Numbers.  A person’s full driver’s license number and state-issued personal 
identification number shall not be included in e-filings.  If an individual’s driver’s 
license number or state-issued personal identification card number must be 
reference in e-filing, only the last four digits of that number should be used and 
the number specified in substantially the following format X-XXX-XXX-XX1-234.
vi. Home Addresses.  With the exception of a self-represented party, full home 
addresses shall not be included in e-filings.  If an individual’s home address 
must be referenced in an e-filing, only the city and state shall be used.
b. Parties wishing to file a complete personal data identifier listed above may:
i. Pursuant to and in accordance with the MCR and the LAO, file a motion to 
file a traditional paper version of the document under seal.  The participating
 Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
courts, in granting the motion to file the document under seal, may still require 
that an e-filing that does not reveal the complete personal data identifier be 
filed for the public files, or
ii. Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR and LAO, obtain a 
court order to file a traditional paper reference list under seal.  The reference 
list shall contain the complete personal data identifiers and the redacted 
identifiers included in the reference list shall be construed to refer to the 
corresponding complete personal data identifiers.  The reference list must be 
filed under seal, and may be amended as of right.
c. Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or 
confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered 
above and listed below:
i. Medical records, treatment and diagnosis;
ii. Employment history;
iii. Individual financial information;
iv. Insurance information;
v. Proprietary or trade secret information;
vi. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and 
vii. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity.
13. Records and Reports
Further, the participating courts will file a joint annual report covering the annual 
project progress by January 1 of each year (or more frequently or on another date 
as specified by the Court), that outlines the following:
a. Detailed financial data that show the total amount of money collected in fees for 
documents filed or served under the pilot project to date, the original projections 
for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been met.
b. Detailed financial information regarding the distribution or retention of collected 
fees, including the amount paid to each vendor per document and in total for the 
subject period and the amount retained by the participating courts or funding unit 
per document and in total for the period.
c. Detailed information regarding whether the monies retained by the participating 
courts are in a separate account or commingled with other monies.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
d. A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a 
statement of whether and when each cost will recur.
e. A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the participating courts whether by 
reduced personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the 
participating courts are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties.
f. Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and 
whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after the 
conclusion of the pilot program.
g. A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee 
collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods.
14. Amendments
Procedural aspects of these rules may be amended upon the recommendation of 
the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the 
State Court Administrator.  Proposed substantive changes, including, for example, a 
proposed expansion of the program to permit additional case types and a proposed 
change in fees, must be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval.
15. Expiration
Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, 
allowing parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating 
judges, shall continue until December 31, 2016.

Administrative Order 2011-6
[Entered October 20, 2011]
E-Filing Project in Oakland Probate Court
On order of the Court, the Oakland County Probate Court is authorized to 
implement an Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project.  The pilot project is 
established to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu 
of traditional paper filings in certain instances.  The pilot project shall begin 
September 1, 2011, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and shall remain in effect 
until July 31, 2013, or further order of this Court.  The Oakland County Probate 
Court is aware that rules regarding electronic filing have been published for 
comment by this Court.  If this Court adopts electronic-filing rules during the 
pendency of the Oakland County Probate Court Electronic Document Filing Pilot 
Project, the Oakland County Probate Court will, within 60 days of the effective date 
of the rules, comply with the requirements of those rules.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
The Oakland County Probate Court will track the participation and effectiveness 
of this pilot program and shall report to and provide information as requested by 
the State Court Administrative Office.
1. Construction
The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing 
court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination 
of the actions involved in the pilot program.  The Oakland County Probate Court 
may exercise its discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of 
error so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.  Except for matters 
related to electronically filing documents during the pilot program, the Michigan 
Rules of Court govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot.
2. Definitions
(a) “Register” means the Oakland County Probate Register.
(b) “E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, 
judgment, notice, claims, inventories, accounts, reports, or other 
documents filed electronically pursuant to the pilot program.
(c) “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the Oakland 
County Probate Court.  
(d) “MCR” means the Michigan Rules of Court.
(e) “Pilot program” means the initiative by the Oakland County Probate 
Court in conjunction with the Oakland County Department of 
Information Technology, and in part with Tyler, Inc. (Wiznet), and 
under the supervision of the State Court Administrative Office. 
This efiling application facilitates the electronic filing of pleadings, motions, 
briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, claims, inventories, 
accounts, reports, and other documents.  The Oakland County pilot 
program will begin testing with one probate judge with “DE”, “DA,” 
“TV,” and “CZ” case types.  The court plans to expand the pilot 
program to all probate judges as soon as practicable.  
(f) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other 
malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing 
or sending or receiving service of an e-filing.
(g) “Wiznet envelope” means an electronic submission that contains one or 
more Wiznet transactions.
(h) “Wiznet transaction” means the submission of one or more related 
documents which results in a single register of actions entry.  
3. Participation in the Pilot Program
(a) Participation in the pilot program shall be mandatory in all newly filed 
DE, DA, TV or CZ case types assigned to the participating probate 
judges.  Participation shall begin following the filing of the initial 
petition, complaint or other initiating document, and assignment of the 
case to a participating judge pursuant to the court’s LAO.  At the Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
discretion of the judge, participation may also include post-disposition 
proceedings in qualifying case types assigned to participating judges.
(b) This is a mandatory e-filing project.  It is presumed that all documents 
will be filed electronically.  However, the Court recognizes that 
circumstances may arise that will prevent a party from e-filing.  To 
ensure that all parties retain access to the Courts, parties that 
demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file their documents with 
the register’s office, who will then file the documents electronically.  
Among the factors that the Oakland County Probate Court will consider 
in determining whether good cause exists to excuse a party from 
mandatory e-filing are a party’s access to the Internet and indigency.  
A self-represented party is not excused from the project merely 
because the individual does not have counsel.
4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance, and Time of Service with the Court; Signature  
(a) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and 
the pilot program’s technical requirements.  The register may, in 
accordance with MCR 8.119(C), reject documents submitted for filing 
that do not comply with MCR 5.113 or MCR 2.113(C)(2), are not 
accompanied by the proper fees, clearly violate Administrative Order 
No. 2006-2, do not conform to the technical requirements of this pilot 
project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a statute, an MCR, 
an LAO, or the program rules.
(b) E-filings may be submitted to the court at any time, but shall only be 
reviewed and accepted for filing by the Oakland County Probate Court 
during the normal business hours of the register’s office.  E-filings 
submitted after business hours shall be deemed filed on the business 
day the e-filing is accepted for filing.  The register’s office shall process 
electronic submissions on a first-in, first-out basis.
(c) E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand delivered to the court for 
all purposes under statute, court rule, and administrative order.
(d) A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served 
under this rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, 
register, attorney, party, or declarant.
(i)Signatures submitted electronically shall be scanned copies of the 
actual signed document, or shall use the following form for the 
signature:   /s/John L. Smith.
(ii) A document that requires a signature under the penalty of 
perjury, or is required to be signed by the fiduciary or trustee under 
MCR 5.114(A)(3), is deemed signed by the declarant or fiduciary if, 
before filing, the declarant or fiduciary has signed a printed form of the 
document.
(iii) An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public 
is deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the 
notary public has signed a printed form of the document.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
(e) The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a 
verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g. an affidavit, notarization, 
or bill of costs) must be maintained by the filing attorney or selfrepresented litigant and made available upon reasonable request of 
the court, the signatory, or opposing party.
(f) Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the 
provisions of the pilot program.  The court and the register shall 
exchange the documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 
2.602(B).
(g) By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer indicates 
compliance with these rules.
5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; Judge’s 
Copies; Hearings on Motions; Fees
(a) All times for filing and serving filings shall be governed by the applicable 
statute, the MCR and the LAO as if the e-filings were hand delivered.
(b) The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this pilot 
program satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy where 
applicable under the MCR.  Upon request by the court, the filing party 
shall promptly provide a traditional judge’s copy to chambers.
(c) Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be paid 
electronically through procedures established by the Oakland County 
Probate Court at the same time and in the same amount as required 
by statute, court rule, or administrative order.  Inventory fees shall be 
paid according to procedures established by the court.
(i) Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees:
Type of Filing Fee
EFO (e-filing) $5.00
EFS (e-filing with service) $8.00
SO (service only) $5.00
(ii) Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for 
a 3% user fee.
6. Service
(a) All parties shall register as a service contact with the Tyler (Wiznet) 
application which will provide the court and opposing parties with one 
e-mail address with the functionality required for the pilot program.  
All service shall originate from and be perfected upon this e-mail address.
(b) Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all e-filings 
must be served electronically to the e-mail address of all interested Administrative Orders  
Last Updated 10/28/2011
parties.  The subject matter line for the transmittal of document 
served by e-mail shall state:  “Service of e-filing in case [insert caption 
of case].”
(c) The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail service, 
efilings may be served to the parties (but not the court) by other 
appropriate means under the MCR.  For those choosing to accept 
facsimile service:
(i) the parties shall provide the court and the opposing parties 
with one facsimile number with appropriate functionality,
(ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which 
service may be made,
(iii) the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of 
delivery, and
(iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of the MCR on the 
use of facsimile communication equipment.
(d) The court reserves the right to serve parties by traditional means, 
including facsimile, when necessary to ensure appropriate service of 
notices, opinions and orders, and other official court documents.
(e) Proof of Service shall be submitted to the Oakland County Probate Court 
according to the MCR and these rules.
7. Format and Form of E-filing and Service
(a) A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction.
(b) All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements 
of the court’s vendor.
(c) Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly 
designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment.
(d) All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the 
parties in the same format and form as submitted to the court.
8. Pleadings, Motions, and Documents Not to Be E-Filed
The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot program and must be 
filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO:
(a) documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order),
(b) initiating documents,
(c) original documents which are required by statute to be filed with the 
court, such as wills submitted for probate.  In such case, the document 
shall be e-filed using a copy of the document and the original shall be 
delivered to the court for filing within 14 days of the e-filing date,
(d) inventories that are being presented pursuant to MCL 700.3706,
(e) documents for case evaluation proceedings.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies
(a) For purposes of this pilot program, the electronic version of all 
documents filed with the Court, with the exception of documents filed 
under seal, is the official court record.  An appellate record for the 
Court of Appeals shall be certified in accordance with MCR 
7.210(A)(1).
(b) Certified copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the conventional 
manner by the Oakland County Probate Register in compliance with 
the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards.
(c) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program does not continue 
as a pilot project or in some other format, the register shall convert all 
e-filings to paper form in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d). 
Participating attorneys shall provide reasonable assistance in 
constructing the paper record.
(d) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program continues as a 
pilot project or in another format, the register shall provide for record 
retention and public access in a manner consistent with the 
instructions of the court and the court rules.
10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments
At the court’s discretion, the court and register may issue, file and serve orders, 
judgments, and notices as e-filings.
11. Technical Malfunctions
(a) A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment 
(such as Portable Document Format [PDF] conversion problems or 
inability to access the pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such as 
an inoperable e-mail address), or an apparent technical malfunction of 
the court’s pilot equipment, software, or server shall use reasonable 
efforts to timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall 
provide prompt notice to the court and the parties of any such 
malfunction.
(b) If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, 
responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an efiling, the 
affected party may petition the Oakland County Probate 
Court for relief.  Such petition shall contain an adequate proof of the 
technical malfunction and set forth good cause for failure to use nonelectronic 
means to timely file or serve a document.  The court shall 
liberally consider proof of the technical malfunction and use its 
discretion in determining whether such relief is warranted.
12. Privacy Considerations
(a) Social Security Numbers.  Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full 
social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings.  If an individual’s social 
security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that 
Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
number may be used and the number specified in substantially the following 
format:  XXX-XX-1234.
(b) Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or 
confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered 
above and listed below:
1. Medical records, treatment and diagnosis;
2. Employment history;
3. Individual financial information;
4. Insurance information;
5. Proprietary or trade secret information;
6. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and
7. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity.
13. The Oakland Probate Court shall file an annual report with the Supreme Court 
covering the project to date by January 1 of each year (or more frequently or on 
another date as specified by the Court) that outlines the following:
(a) Detailed financial data that show the total amount of money collected in fees for 
documents filed or served under the pilot project to date, the original projections 
for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been met or exceeded.
(b) Detailed financial information regarding the distribution or retention of collected 
fees, including the amount paid to Tyler per document and in total for the subject 
period, the amount retained by the court per document and in total for the period, 
and whether the monies retained by the court are in a separate account or 
commingled with other monies.
(c) A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a 
statement of whether and when each cost will recur.
(d) A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the court whether by reduced 
personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the court 
are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties.
(e) Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and 
whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after the 
conclusion of the pilot program.
(f) A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee 
collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods.
14. Amendment
Procedural aspects of these rules may be amended upon the recommendation of 
the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the 
State Court Administrator. Proposed substantive changes, including, for example, a 
proposed expansion of the program to permit additional case types and a proposed 
change in fees, must be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval.Administrative Orders  Last Updated 10/28/2011
15. Expiration
Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, 
requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating 
judges, shall continue until July 31, 2013

Comments