[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6639660,"mediaKeyId","3466643-0f87e1e931a0c65bfa619fdf354e9944","parentId",3466643,"title","Michigan attorneys urge changes to proposed IOLTA rule, warn of cash‑flow harms for small firms","audioSeconds",2774,"startMs",20000,"endMs",2794000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3466643-0f87e1e931a0c65bfa619fdf354e9944&start=20&end=2794","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3466643-0f87e1e931a0c65bfa619fdf354e9944/thumbnail_20000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6639660/Michigan/Michigan-attorneys-urge-changes-to-proposed-IOLTA-rule-warn-of-cashflow-harms-for-small-firms","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6639660-4b72788adb6bfc4d23deea43423cbac4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770709945&Signature=ZUUnTcNc46aLZBnwVAe6LyCOZDz~V0MmX5vkDnzS7sdO0zmB3KrbtiNwb3isTqRJMqrAwyX5nux1iKwpqDWfXc7TWowwykQQ3-O~RJqs4iJzK~nnwUJAcvLnQvrCO9TjYpbDd2omOAyqpyMTh7nn-moH80wR7MlMzdXrFNFfQvA1w6nYMeYm54iKv2Gj1emTAWG6au1NafsjQGe~NlyPF05zCxrtee0h4sUZjIehY3ApIrCRl6ziXmMImsWUiqlXv-25kWqTx~cZ6bEBNqV-FLlRwBFSruxPXXmvfvXTQLpQatyukCILO6NcknoWVowmC0yZk0upD2Qn6hCq3hgDgA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-23T17:39:46.52Z","article","Several Michigan lawyers, the Attorney Discipline Board and the Attorney Grievance Commission took part in a May 2025 Michigan Supreme Court public hearing on proposed amendments to Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 and proposed additions 1.15b and 1.15c, which would change how attorneys handle client funds held in IOLTA (interest on lawyers' trust accounts). Speakers split on two central issues: whether the court should include a presumptive timing benchmark for removing earned fees from trust accounts, and whether the rules should permit or restrict nonrefundable fees.

Shelly Kester, owner of Wilson Kester, The Empowered Divorce Source, told the court that imposing a fixed waiting period to transfer earned fees from trust to operating accounts would be “unnecessary and impractical.” Kester said client funds are already protected by separation into client trust accounts and by written fee agreements that set invoice cadence. “A one‑size‑fits‑all requirement would needlessly complicate a system that already functions effectively,” she said.

Lisa Speaker, an appellate attorney who circulated a joint letter with family‑law colleagues, said the proposed language could force small and solo firms to increase retainer amounts or decline cases because delayed access to earned fees would strain cash flow and payroll. “If those payment plans are going to stretch out what they owe over the course of a couple years, it’s going to create a hardship on the firm,” Speaker said, urging the court to consider the access‑to‑justice impact on clients who cannot pay large upfront fees.

John Burgess, deputy director of the Attorney Discipline Board, said the board supports most of the amendments, which the board said provide clarity on lawyers’ fiduciary duties, but disagrees with using rule 1.15 to resolve the permissibility of nonrefundable fees. The board urged that questions about allowing or restricting nonrefundable fees be addressed in a revision to Rule 1.5, which governs fees generally. Burgess also noted that the comments’ 30‑day benchmark is described as a presumptive standard, not an absolute requirement: “30 days is not a requirement for reasonableness,” he told the court.

Kimberly Uhuru of the Attorney Grievance Commission urged the court to omit language allowing nonrefundable fees or, at minimum, to make clear that such fees remain subject to a reasonableness review under Rule 1.5 and must be refunded to the extent unearned under Rule 1.16. Uhuru described repeated grievance investigations in which attorneys left fees in trust accounts and then treated those funds like operating money; in some cases, grievance staff found trust accounts shielding funds from creditors or tax liens. “Once they’re earned, get them out,” she said, supporting a prompt removal standard to prevent misuse.

John Allen, a long‑practicing attorney who filed written comments, argued that the court should not use Rule 1.15 to overturn past precedent such as Cooper or to broadly ban certain fee arrangements. Allen said classical retainers and some flat or upfront fees have recognized legal and practical roles and that reasonableness review under Rule 1.5 remains available to address abuses.

Speakers illustrated tradeoffs. Commenters pressed that short presumptive timelines (the comments reference 30 days) can give judges and regulators a benchmark and help identify attorneys leaving fees in trust too long; lawyers warned that inflexible timing could disrupt payroll, tax obligations and the business models of small firms that rely on retainers and payment plans. Several lawyers noted modern banking and payment technologies make frequent transfers less burdensome than in the past.

The court heard no vote or final action during the hearing. Several presenters recommended alternative approaches: adopt a presumptive benchmark (with flexibility for shorter or longer periods by agreement), keep timing guidance in comment language rather than the rule text, or move fee‑structure questions into a separate Rule 1.5 amendment process.

The record included written comment letters referenced during the hearing and examples used by speakers, including hypothetical and anecdotal scenarios involving $1,500 flat fees, a reported $50,000 nonrefundable fee example, and disciplinary investigations involving funds left in trust accounts. The disciplinary board and grievance commission both urged that any permissive language about nonrefundable fees be carefully limited and tied to Rule 1.5 reasonableness review.

The court’s staff will receive the oral comments for the public record as it continues to consider final language for the rules and comments.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","MSC Administrative Public Hearing - May 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Several Michigan lawyers, the Attorney Discipline Board and the Attorney Grievance Commission debated proposed amendments to Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 at a May 2025 public hearing, splitting over a presumptive timing benchmark for moving earned fees from IOLTA trust accounts and whether the rules should permit nonrefundable fees.","taxTitle","Supreme Court Judicial Rulings ( Opinions ), Judicial, Michigan","taxId",74552,"location","Michigan","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6639653,"Legal‑aid group backs judicial rule to help self‑represented litigants, asks for clearer guidance",174,3054000,3228000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3466643-0f87e1e931a0c65bfa619fdf354e9944&start=3054&end=3228","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3466643-0f87e1e931a0c65bfa619fdf354e9944/thumbnail_3054000.jpg","/articles/6639653/Michigan/Legalaid-group-backs-judicial-rule-to-help-selfrepresented-litigants-asks-for-clearer-guidance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6639653-050626d74d35e7a9019f00339625d047/orig.mp4?Expires=1770709945&Signature=ep39nvQhnhLQfpQaJ0vib0wU4cCFsP9XBCJaCkh1iHcne~j9ebdvUQdb8CUetlcpTiXjbapn--uvtiZAbRlfyWQWi1tW-Fpb3QYa0Ec63DoWh9dJBHhEwEP8U~xRaEDqxj0MLnpYuOtb8RGR6XM3rv6nIykUpIflzwUo0q5hMbBgOyvlxd9x9dwRzcprQ39REEMCTIDa~04OymWqVea1g7eWP3D8FFstYqrco~MQS7h2i5M2z3ZtueSgtOHxHlPJB-f-BkDPerCPZeOLW0Pas9d5gD4kcj3dCa~SgcMUHSWaZTXUc7ibW-B6UO36jB7rHg06E5ivj-Fb4sRSVLo1Aw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kim Kramer of the Michigan Legal Help Program told the Michigan Supreme Court at a May 2025 hearing that the court’s proposed amendment to the Code of Judicial Conduct — permitting judges to make reasonable efforts to facilitate the ability of all litigants to be fairly heard — is a positive step to improve access to justice for self‑represented litigants. Kramer urged the court to supplement the rule with non‑prescriptive examples of permissible actions so judges understand the line between assistance and advocacy.

Kramer recommended the court consider moving from “may” to “should” in the rule text to emphasize an affirmative judicial role, pointing to similar language adopted in Wisconsin, the District of Columbia and Massachusetts. She said other states’ guidance provides a menu of permissible actions without being prescriptive and can increase consistency in how courts treat self‑represented litigants.

The court took Kramer’s comments for the record and asked no follow‑up questions. No rule revision vote or final language was adopted at the hearing.

Michigan Legal Help operates a statewide free legal‑information service for self‑represented litigants; Kramer said clearer guidance from the court would empower judges to take appropriate steps to ensure fairness without risking inappropriate advocacy.","Michigan Legal Help told the Supreme Court it supports a proposed amendment to the Code of Judicial Conduct encouraging judges to make reasonable efforts to ensure self‑represented litigants are fairly heard, but asked for specific illustrative guidance and stronger 'should' language.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":79,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6639655,"State Appellate Defender Office urges court to drop time limits on restoration of appellate rights",360,2694000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3466643-0f87e1e931a0c65bfa619fdf354e9944&start=2694&end=3054","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3466643-0f87e1e931a0c65bfa619fdf354e9944/thumbnail_2694000.jpg","/articles/6639655/Michigan/State-Appellate-Defender-Office-urges-court-to-drop-time-limits-on-restoration-of-appellate-rights","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6639655-dedf59ba315863285d99b07501df09d5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770709945&Signature=PTt8elQadLWg4Tnl2r22cb46USFAm7VvcLYoDRIu-BpY3KNmnKyGXMlGZfKM-uTw2vNOZ7QsjzZ-M0uuTcD-jl5btobDYjC3QDbrf8G69ZKo0ruXjjiMS8teoQo2eap0mhuCkCRicrsY9doVbwl02-zY3Xrp5uP45DVPWUnuXlAXbSE7ICMz2NAGoDM~rOo9SQ7y1BgqdCBKaDHgJoqxOGIFTrIMe42QTCTvIe6URt6B0fXi4sP9HenD-CcSPvHsbKgK9uzF8JUWUaV59ywl0xB3Y0pWVbb2DvtvVT-5DskVSs-MOV36k9u2WfobmJQ-elAYDRplRtVccL~bhJzk2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Josh Pease, representing the State Appellate Defender Office (SADO), told the Michigan Supreme Court at a May 2025 public hearing that proposed timelines for restoring appellate rights in criminal and juvenile cases would undermine access to justice for people who face barriers to filing within strict deadlines. Pease urged the court to adopt an earlier draft of the ADM that would have expanded restoration procedures without imposing new time bars.

Pease said delay in asserting appellate rights can stem from many causes: inaction by appellate counsel, postal problems in correctional settings, cognitive or developmental disabilities, or clerical errors at trial courts. He cited multiple individuals whose appellate rights were restored more than two years after the appellate period had expired — examples included two named cases that were dismissed following restoration and at least one case leading to a substantial sentence reduction — and said those outcomes demonstrate the public interest in flexible restoration procedures.

A justice asked whether jurisdictional questions arise when juveniles age out of the system before a restoration request is resolved. Pease said he believes the juvenile court that adjudicated the child would remain the appropriate forum but acknowledged that the precise procedure “hasn’t been explored yet.”

When asked whether a presumptive timeline with exceptions would be acceptable, Pease said personally he would find a 2‑year presumptive period with case‑by‑case exceptions reasonable, but he did not speak for SADO on that point. The court made no decision at the hearing.

The item under consideration would amend MCR 3.993 and 6.428 to address restoration of appellate rights in juvenile and criminal cases. Commenters and the court discussed balancing timely finality with the consequences of denying late restoration petitions that may be caused by systemic barriers in prisons or by attorney error.","At a May 2025 hearing, the State Appellate Defender Office urged the Michigan Supreme Court not to adopt time limits for requests to restore appellate rights in criminal and juvenile cases, saying timelines would reduce access and that past restorations after long delays produced relief.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Michigan attorneys urge changes to proposed IOLTA rule, warn of cash‑flow harms for small firms

Legal‑aid group backs judicial rule to help self‑represented litigants, asks for clearer guidance

State Appellate Defender Office urges court to drop time limits on restoration of appellate rights