Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Remote Participation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Speakers urge Michigan Supreme Court to reject or narrow 30-mile remote-judge restriction
Summary
Referees, court administrators and judges told the Michigan Supreme Court the proposed administrative order limiting remote judicial participation (including a 30-mile rule) would unduly restrict referees, hinder court operations, and should instead leave discretion to chief judges with conduct-based enforcement safeguards.
Daniel Ferenczi, a domestic relations referee speaking for the Referees Association of Michigan, told the Court the proposed administrative order on remote participation is overbroad and would ‘‘result in a disruption of court functions’’ and ‘‘is an overbroad solution to solve a real but isolated issue.’’ Ferenczi warned that tying remote eligibility to residence would arbitrarily disqualify referees who, unlike judges, are not required to live in a county and that the proposal ‘‘may conflict with some state labor laws’’ and with collective-bargaining arrangements.
Erin Lincoln, friend of the court and deputy court administrator in the Third Circuit’s domestic division, told justices the rule would prevent six of her 21 front-of-court referees from holding remote hearings because they live out of state or more than 30 miles from the courthouse. Lincoln said the Third Circuit allows referees one day of remote work per week plus approved flex days and that a chief referee supervises hearings; she urged the Court to ‘‘reconsider the proposed changes’’ and let chief judges tailor policies to local needs.
Judge Travis Reeds, appearing later, praised remote proceedings’ ability to expand access to justice but called the 30-mile limitation ‘‘arbitrary and impractical.’’ Reeds suggested geographic boundaries tied to state jurisdiction or chief-judge discretion would better protect litigant interests while preserving flexibility. He proposed post-implementation data review and possible limits on how many remote days chief judges could approve without notice.
In response, several justices questioned whether remote proceedings are primarily for litigants or for judges. Reeds emphasized the litigant benefit and suggested safeguards such as oversight by chief judges, limits on routine off-site docketing, and notification requirements when approvals exceed a threshold. Commenters also raised security concerns about requiring party consent for routine absences, saying blanket consent rules could disclose a judicial officer’s home availability.
No vote or formal action was taken at the hearing. Speakers asked the Court either to decline adoption of the order as written or to revise it to (1) exempt referees or craft a separate rule reflecting their residency differences, (2) give chief judges discretion to tailor remote policies, and (3) include targeted enforcement mechanisms tied to conduct rather than location.
The Court did not announce a timetable for decision; the public hearing record will remain part of its rulemaking file.
