[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6465826,"mediaKeyId","5844525-5456bdec482beca5a6f1bbf5264dd3ee","parentId",5844525,"title","Divided Public Comment on Proposed Rule Barring Bias, Prejudice and Harassment; Grievance Commission Backs Revision","audioSeconds",2200,"startMs",2205000,"endMs",4481,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5844525-5456bdec482beca5a6f1bbf5264dd3ee&start=2205&end=4","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5844525-5456bdec482beca5a6f1bbf5264dd3ee/thumbnail_2205000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6465826/Michigan/Divided-Public-Comment-on-Proposed-Rule-Barring-Bias-Prejudice-and-Harassment-Grievance-Commission-Backs-Revision","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6465826-0906f70d23925b2051554e8d5c00da86/orig.mp4?Expires=1773566187&Signature=Pr0Jr5WpQQxRrzFPO0qC15ZMnpk9UM9qHMa67mmfSl~KVy~vX6SnPyhRdPqVScT6Gmwq3uQP-5qpM9vNHUdUApaL0mtWvyjps93-LQaUz7PrKu-HZhtM-fgtRr4b0hhL19tKwdCmBIu5J7opayeVWbNXZK3T7vYZ4LJJD4pLBr6ZwZEWFr9yKEANjIsX8jTGPKcocQW~p0Kf~CefW8qG28~KxvxQ4IcFNYpToxMa0ShlGelxHEh~IP2AvCuxtBwQFjaF0-2B19LTethm7J6cU34wiuv-Y3YQisBJ-Y8SOyekNeiuDIjfTCRk55HKrngF~qKBfbENbzOEeWV2OCaKFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Michigan Supreme Court","date","2025-09-25T19:52:17Z","article","The Michigan Supreme Court received extensive oral comment for ADM file 2023-35, a proposal to amend Canon 3 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct and Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 6.5 to prohibit bias, prejudice and harassment in the legal process.

Speakers were sharply divided. David Peters of the Pacific Justice Institute and representatives of religious-liberty and Catholic groups warned the proposed language could compel speech and burden religious exercise. Peters urged the court to protect conscience, arguing the proposal risks \"forcing Christians to state beliefs with their own mouth that are contrary to what has been believed to be holy scripture for thousands of years.\" Laura Namo of the Christian Legal Society said the proposal is effectively a speech code for lawyers and could criminalize vigorous advocacy on controversial topics.

William Bloomfield, general counsel for the Catholic Diocese of Lansing, told the court the existing rules requiring courtesy and respect are sufficient and that the new language is vague and could be used to penalize judges and lawyers for expressing religiously grounded views. \"The proposed rules impermissibly regulate speech and infringe the free exercise of religion,\" Bloomfield said, citing recent federal decisions on religious-liberty claims.

By contrast, Kimberly Uhuru, speaking for the Attorney Grievance Commission, urged adoption of the proposed amendments to strengthen protections against discrimination in the legal process while also recommending the court retain the existing courtesy-and-respect language to address incivility. \"The commission supports the proposed language,\" Uhuru said, but asked that the current civility provision be preserved because it helps address non-bias-related uncivil conduct.

Other speakers opposed removal of the existing language requiring lawyers to treat all persons with courtesy and respect and warned of chilling effects on zealous advocacy and free expression. Michael Lieb and William Wagner urged keeping the courtesy-and-respect provision; Wagner argued the proposed wording would be subject to strict constitutional scrutiny and could invite viewpoint discrimination. Marcia McBrien said the proposal risks creating a culture of \"walking on eggshells\" that could deter attorneys from raising difficult legal arguments. Longtime practitioner Bob McGill said the change would burden judges and lawyers and invite frivolous grievance filings.

The court did not take a vote at the hearing; the oral remarks were entered into the public comment record for the court's consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Public Administrative Hearing - September 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Michigan Supreme Court received sharply divided oral comment on a proposal to add language to Canon 3 and MRPC 6.5 prohibiting bias, prejudice and harassment in the legal process.","taxTitle","Supreme Court Judicial Rulings ( Opinions ), Judicial, Michigan","taxId",74552,"location","Michigan","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6465835,"State Bar ADR Section Seeks Alignment of Court Rule with Michigan Uniform Arbitration Act",233,831000,1064000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5844525-5456bdec482beca5a6f1bbf5264dd3ee&start=831&end=1064","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5844525-5456bdec482beca5a6f1bbf5264dd3ee/thumbnail_831000.jpg","/articles/6465835/Michigan/State-Bar-ADR-Section-Seeks-Alignment-of-Court-Rule-with-Michigan-Uniform-Arbitration-Act","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6465835-3d1f30040944366aba763ea0094e4671/orig.mp4?Expires=1773566187&Signature=mBzNxdZRUcj821CD1XJ5c4QXEuK~DExTPCFFDTHZeC1JpnAqp~~7jvpPErqOMm3HshtJ~NJszEgD7Yub7kP9g0dLpuyBMQQJaLmzUmo9cpvdWI3-ajA4zB9VhyqtU6-MSwAIcZZjNi763Nc-9gO1zR2pWmZ6zwzlvRw37JCx~qCAPyC3vCgN0smJk-5DGOZLxOekiMNop2OrBVtDZ7F5tbU5QbkVdfBrZLQoyl0xh0PuuR81tvywkbH-OI~tP79U-cwXBE6vkzwVIWtUAlbIO7cGfaCW7PkK6FVgdLz7Faf6-svOx9-gQo-pPijzRUtQSnVh6XzluD13oPNJOeptjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Larry Sailor, representing the State Bar of Michigan's Alternative Dispute Resolution Section, told the Michigan Supreme Court that the proposed amendment to MCR 3.602 would correct conflicts between the court rule and the Michigan Uniform Arbitration Act.

Sailor said the Michigan Uniform Arbitration Act, effective July 1, 2013, provides a 90-day deadline to file petitions to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award for arbitrations not governed by the domestic relations arbitration act. He explained that the court rule contained shorter deadlines—\"as short as 21 days\" in some circumstances—and the proposed amendment would make the rule yield to the statute when the statute applies.

\"This has no impact on [domestic relations] arbitrations,\" Sailor said, calling the amendment a technical but valuable correction. The proposal came before the court as ADM file 2023-12. No questions were raised at the hearing and the court made no on-the-record decision at that time.","Larry Sailor of the State Bar of Michigan's ADR Section told the court that proposed amendments to MCR 3.602 would resolve a timing conflict with the Michigan Uniform Arbitration Act by deferring to the statute's 90-day deadline in most cases.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6465840,"Defense Advocate Urges Longer Review Window for Referee Recommendations in Juvenile Court",610,110000,720000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5844525-5456bdec482beca5a6f1bbf5264dd3ee&start=110&end=720","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5844525-5456bdec482beca5a6f1bbf5264dd3ee/thumbnail_110000.jpg","/articles/6465840/Michigan/Defense-Advocate-Urges-Longer-Review-Window-for-Referee-Recommendations-in-Juvenile-Court","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6465840-875e4f89d6cc11cb0f1a2e2d02a65ac8/orig.mp4?Expires=1773566187&Signature=Ay-Te6kAEz873XnVzx1MxZw199eqHt8shLnAqiYSTJzOZj8X9jinUJyh48N7hVTmK13ifioMuV8XOEzv0zrqQpXUbvtt0KoGR3xLz2v2dUcaXYkaBnDcaJ5XQQvXSjqxOuxyMM1Yg1ZThK~jgCxqvDO5ToYPV2Mm7edsj~jV1ba22nrg2y6HDtgR263VTizHttrzu377m-w0nHyKv52lQhdRVzpgsf0P18lyW-gWtxvkO3MLvMnUExbnXFOPJQL5xsKuJra0fvZ2N58i8Hq0FAtnNi99jZYHENpb5yC05nh~FxNwlTIGahVWI5Lv2tntqG15sW9cFjAs5I5xVDqqug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Josh Pease of the State Appellate Defender Office told the Michigan Supreme Court that the court should amend MCR 3.991 to give parties more opportunity for meaningful judicial review of referee recommendations in juvenile cases.

\"If a judge signs a recommendation into an order an hour after the referee issues them, there is effectively 0 opportunity to request review,\" Pease said, describing the current rule's effect when judges quickly convert referee recommendations into orders. The item under consideration was ADM file 2022-34, a proposed amendment of MCR 3.991 addressing judicial review of referee recommendations in juvenile matters.

Pease said he initially proposed broader amendments but now supports the version suggested by the State Bar Board of Commissioners and the Children's Law Section. He said the board's proposal strikes a balance by allowing judges to act quickly \"particularly for an order removing a child from an abusive household\" while expanding the timeframe for requesting review from seven to 14 days to give attorneys more flexibility.

Pease also recommended that MCR 3.992 be amended alongside 3.991 to address the limited scope of rehearing motions, noting that rehearing often returns matters to the same referee rather than to the judge for review. \"Amending 3.991 for that greater flexibility, while simultaneously amending 3.992 to make it easier to obtain a motion for rehearing, is, at least in my mind, the best solution,\" he told the court.

Pease referenced statutory concerns that judges must retain ultimate decision-making in juvenile proceedings and said the proposed changes would \"help ensure that it is the judge, not the referee, who is truly making the decisions in a case.\" The hearing record contains Pease’s spoken comment and the court’s agenda listing for ADM 2022-34; the court made no on-the-record decision at the session.","Josh Pease of the State Appellate Defender Office recommended the Michigan Supreme Court adopt an amendment to MCR 3.991 that would expand the time to request review of a referee's recommendations and pair changes to MCR 3.992 to preserve meaningful in-court review.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6465844,"Wayne County Judge Urges Caution on Broad Remote-Participation Rule for Judges",477,383000,860000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5844525-5456bdec482beca5a6f1bbf5264dd3ee&start=383&end=860","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5844525-5456bdec482beca5a6f1bbf5264dd3ee/thumbnail_383000.jpg","/articles/6465844/Michigan/Wayne-County-Judge-Urges-Caution-on-Broad-Remote-Participation-Rule-for-Judges","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6465844-1e677a624bb994db5b7604b4b91b660f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773566187&Signature=S1fwPZpgs80LYHZbsfAamet2~N00RTS20rH2nJZsvR66ec0UimSV9BdI5fImklhD7UfLJ5YBs1K13nV-NU7M89XUaMXjru4WqdnoQo83E~hSsLaoavZCMho~QDFtBvwDV7Oxc2dbqpnGRrMn9SX8nToGUyf~LUphFpS8QMSvNfGOkmirUZPZ5uCnB4aIPpuftyPFAWSRFEK2qW5Z9ZXylAI~pR5QDElji8RYgB2DC65wPB16TuB16obJF0Vk41CpNan1hRNP1LKmcThRsbWEi6LIyEeWZ4lEsC4~oys3SbtfX8mdiiVPflkz1hxMWwHoJs2VYRBcXWUoY~HSATwUjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Judge Kevin Cox of the Wayne County Circuit Court told the Michigan Supreme court during its September administrative public hearing that while remote proceedings have clear benefits, the court should weigh how long judges may remain away from courtrooms under any new rule.

\"I think everybody has experienced the benefits of judicial proceedings being conducted remotely,\" Cox said, adding that remote appearances \"has made access to our courts much easier, for many people.\" The proposed item (ADM file 2019-40) would adopt Administrative Order 2025-x, rescind Administrative Order 2012-7 and amend MCR 2.407 to clarify when, from where, and how a judicial officer may participate remotely, subject to the chief judge's approval.

Cox said the central concern is public perception and trust. \"If judges don't come to court 4 weeks at a time, it lessens, the respect to the court system,\" he told the justices. He said some divisions, including family and civil, have continued to operate efficiently, but questioned whether replacing in-person presence with prolonged remote practice would affect public confidence.

Cox described himself as neutral on the specific rule change and said he had no definitive solution. \"I wanna be like Switzerland,\" he said, adding he respected colleagues who work remotely and who \"for the most part, work remotely because they're efficient and they're smart, and justice is served.\" But he warned against the image of judges making decisions \"for all intents and purposes, over the telephone.\"

The record for this item included no formal motion or vote at the hearing; Cox spoke as a member of the trial court bench and offered observations for the justices to consider as they finalize any administrative order or rule amendment. The court did not direct staff or issue a decision on the record at the hearing.","Judge Kevin Cox told the Michigan Supreme Court that remote proceedings have improved access to courts but raised concerns that permitting prolonged remote work by judges could weaken public confidence and the perception of judicial seriousness.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6465831,"Legal Aid and Bar Groups Urge Michigan Supreme Court to Adopt Updated Pro Bono Rule",1295,956000,2251000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5844525-5456bdec482beca5a6f1bbf5264dd3ee&start=956&end=2251","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5844525-5456bdec482beca5a6f1bbf5264dd3ee/thumbnail_956000.jpg","/articles/6465831/Michigan/Legal-Aid-and-Bar-Groups-Urge-Michigan-Supreme-Court-to-Adopt-Updated-Pro-Bono-Rule","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6465831-5bf45ee1b9bb1dd8391ce0a25f7d8bb7/orig.mp4?Expires=1773566187&Signature=D-N4-56sGDdJKJUBt~AaGCUI3jY~20F7zzcCFsOGN4bbx3d1RYKUC9752CZGoK5QF~62WvdTz2vdndCmd4srZHGTBnk7dQjjsEmNEorfccz2O1bmfKcw~zEWp4-CgJoKQ3HgQFx6p9TmRhi~jTmEdILi~GWA6AiQzmgiu1XvflAz0cuKm~G3j0QmyxfJKtVn6lTlH-ASNeirhfh3gVID3ci34mf6JagxEuuZ~3CXiSWSHXuvcTog4CdSlcPUd1DzQfjRakaxy9FbGK54ocYMzK~9eCJEh-hBpHZyvW33zXMxLWGRiEBfT~nZPK2mg6kBR4~z3rCBbIhdOtbLCL5czg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Multiple legal-aid leaders, pro bono coordinators and former justices urged the Michigan Supreme Court to adopt the State Bar of Michigan's proposed revision of Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 6.1 to expand and clarify attorneys' pro bono responsibilities.

Jennifer Bentley, executive director of the Michigan State Bar Foundation, said the State Bar's proposal — supported by the foundation, the Legal Services Association of Michigan (LSAM), and the State Planning Body — would both encourage pro bono service and channel donations to the Access to Justice (ATJ) statewide campaign. Bentley said the foundation would be responsible for periodically publishing suggested annual donation amounts so the guidance could adapt to changing economic conditions.

\"The court has an opportunity to adopt a rule that will further access to justice throughout Michigan, and I really encourage you to do so,\" Bentley told the justices.

Heidi Nasco, partner in charge of pro bono at a national law firm, backed the State Bar's proposal and stressed that many jurisdictions already count services to nonprofit organizations when those organizations serve people of limited means. \"Just because you're a nonprofit does not mean you are eligible for pro bono services,\" she said, noting established guidance and practices used by large-firm pro bono programs.

Jennifer Grieco, a small-firm lawyer who serves on the board of Lakeshore Legal Aid, said her firm donates $500 per lawyer annually to the ATJ campaign and that the proposal would encourage more lawyers to both donate and volunteer. Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Kelly said the changes would help close the \"justice gap\" by steering pro bono hours and donations toward people who cannot afford counsel.

Ashley Lowe, CEO of Lakeshore Legal Aid and cochair of the State Planning Body, outlined three key differences between the court's published proposal and the State Bar's recommended approach: recognizing both pro bono service and financial contribution, measuring service by hours (50 hours is a common benchmark) rather than cases, and avoiding a fixed dollar figure in the rule so the State Bar Foundation can set recommended donation amounts on a periodic basis.

Lowe said the State Bar, LSAM and the State Planning Body are united in support of a balanced, flexible rule that focuses on service to people of limited means and allows system-improving activities as part of pro bono work. The court did not issue a decision during the hearing; these remarks were entered into the public comment record for ADM file 2023-22.","Speakers from the Michigan State Bar Foundation, large and small law firms, and legal aid programs urged the court to adopt the State Bar's proposed revision to MRPC 6.1, which would set aspirational pro bono hours and allow the State Bar Foundation to publish suggested donation amounts rather than fixing a dollar figure in the rule.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Divided Public Comment on Proposed Rule Barring Bias, Prejudice and Harassment; Grievance Commission Backs Revision

State Bar ADR Section Seeks Alignment of Court Rule with Michigan Uniform Arbitration Act

Defense Advocate Urges Longer Review Window for Referee Recommendations in Juvenile Court

Wayne County Judge Urges Caution on Broad Remote-Participation Rule for Judges

Legal Aid and Bar Groups Urge Michigan Supreme Court to Adopt Updated Pro Bono Rule