Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates back expanded electronic service but warn exemption process could lock out self-represented litigants
Summary
A Michigan Legal Help attorney told the Michigan Supreme Court that while her group supports expanded electronic service under ADM-2020-08, the proposed opt-out/exemption process risks confusing self-represented litigants, could create unclear consequences if forms are ignored, and may increase phishing risk from encrypted links.
Kim Kramer, a lawyer at the Michigan Legal Help Program, told the Michigan Supreme Court at the March public hearing that her organization supports expanding electronic service under ADM file 2020-08 but remains worried the exemption process could harm people without lawyers.
Kramer said the proposal ‘‘addresses several concerns’’ previously raised, including money-judgment exceptions, a simplified exemption process and privacy protections for notification forms, but added the central remaining problem is the exemption process for self-represented litigants. "Adding procedural complexity at case initiation is no small thing for self-represented people," she said.
Kramer explained that the rule lists six enumerated reasons someone could give to request an exemption from electronic service, but those reasons "might not be intuitive to someone without legal training," such as a person without an email address who may not recognize that they qualify under an enumerated barrier. She cautioned that when an electronic-service notification arrives alongside summons and complaint papers, some recipients "will probably set it aside" and do nothing, creating uncertainty about whether the party has been properly served and what consequences follow.
Kramer also raised practical concerns about summary proceedings and small-claims dockets, which are high-volume and often conducted by Zoom, where the informal handling of paper makes opting out or exchanging paper service awkward. Finally, she warned that encrypted-link notifications "could be mistaken for phishing attempts" and recommended that service be required to originate from contact information previously disclosed so recipients have a simple way to verify legitimacy.
The court invited questions; none were asked. Kramer concluded by thanking the court for its focus on access to justice and offering to take questions.
The hearing record shows support for the policy goal of expanding electronic service but underscores unresolved implementation issues—especially how the court will ensure that self-represented litigants understand and can effectively use any opt-out mechanism. The court did not take formal action during the hearing; next steps will depend on the court’s internal rulemaking process.
