The Basics of Proof of Service
In Michigan, proof of service is not a minor formality. It is the written verification that legal documents have been properly delivered to the parties involved in a case. Without it, defendants may not know what motions, orders, or filings exist against them. This is why proof of service is a cornerstone of due process: it protects the right to notice and the opportunity to respond.
When proof of service is delayed, or worse, ignored, it erodes the rule of law. Courts and prosecutors are bound not just by ethical obligations, but also by constitutional guarantees. A missed filing deadline, or repeated failures to show proof of service, is more than sloppy work: it’s a threat to fundamental due process rights.
Another Troubling Case
Consider this Michigan Supreme Court case:
- The prosecutor already received a two-month extension; both the request for extension and the response were filed on the very last day.
- On August 20, 2025, the responding prosecutor had to be reminded to file proof of service. They didn’t do it.
- On September 9, 2025, the clerk allegedly re-sent proof of service, but still there is no record of it.
- To this day, the incarcerated defendant has not been properly served, well outside the legally prescribed timeframe.
The result? A defendant remains in the dark, dependent on a system that refuses to follow the rules.
The Ethical Failure
The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct demand that prosecutors act with diligence, fairness, and respect for the rights of the accused. Specifically:
- Rule 1.3 (Diligence): Lawyers must act with reasonable diligence and promptness. Repeated failures to file proof of service are the opposite of diligence.
- Rule 3.2 (Expediting Litigation): A lawyer must make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client. Here, delays serve no client, just bureaucratic convenience.
- Rule 8.4 (Misconduct): It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Deliberate or repeated neglect of service requirements squarely fits this definition.
This is not just a matter of professional etiquette. For the defendant, these failures mean continued incarceration without fair notice. For the public, it signals that some courts, especially in Barry County, do not take constitutional rights seriously.
Why Consequences Matter
When prosecutors or courts repeatedly fail to meet their obligations, and judges excuse or ignore the lapses, it sets a dangerous precedent: that due process is optional. At the Michigan Supreme Court level, this is especially alarming, because the stakes are high and the cases often shape precedent statewide.
Even more troubling, is the fact that Judge Michael Schipper has gone on record multiple times disparaging Lansing decision-makers. If local courts dismiss oversight and accountability, where can defendants turn for justice?
If This Were Your Client…
Imagine you’re the defense attorney here. Your client is incarcerated, waiting for the system to play by its own rules. Proof of service is missing. Extensions are abused. Deadlines are treated like mere suggestions.
Would you file motions to dismiss? Move for sanctions? Push the Attorney Grievance Commission for an ethics review? All of the above?
Because at the heart of it, this isn’t just one defendant’s case; it’s a test of whether Michigan courts truly value the rule of law.
Pulling It Together
The justice system doesn’t collapse overnight.
It crumbles one ignored deadline at a time, one missing proof of service at a time, one disparaging comment about oversight at a time. Legal ethics exist for a reason: to protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves. When they’re ignored, there should be real consequences.
🖤 Love what we do? Support Clutch.
