Quick Facts:
A: Multiple system behaviors appear inconsistent with Michigan Court Rules governing confidentiality, record integrity, and party protection.
A: Current search functionality can confirm the existence of nonpublic cases, which undermines confidentiality requirements.
A: Court filings rely on accurate representation. Without identity safeguards, the integrity of the judicial record is compromised.
Michigan’s MiFile system was designed to modernize court access. But modernization without safety is not progress. A review of MiFile’s current behavior shows a pattern of structural decisions that conflict with Michigan Court Rules intended to protect confidentiality, ensure record integrity, and prevent procedural harm.
This is not about a single incident or a single user. It is about what the system allows—by design.
1. Forced Digital Proximity Inside a Protection System
MiFile includes a “Connections” feature that allows users to request contact with other parties. There is no meaningful way to block or restrict these requests.
In cases involving PPOs or domestic relations, this contradicts the logic of court rules designed to reduce contact and protect petitioners. Court systems should never require survivors to navigate unwanted contact inside the very platform meant to protect them.
2. Nonpublic Cases That Are Not Actually Nonpublic
Michigan Court Rules require courts to safeguard nonpublic proceedings. MiFile’s search behavior allows users to confirm the existence of protected cases through wildcard queries.
Even without names, revealing case existence and type exposes vulnerable litigants to targeting and retaliation. Confidentiality is not just about redaction. It is about invisibility to unauthorized users.
| Security Element | MiFILE Status | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Identity Verification | ❌ Missing | Critical |
| 2FA / MFA | ❌ Missing | Critical |
| Role-Based Access | ❌ Misconfigured / Broken | Critical |
| Search Restrictions | ❌ Missing | Critical |
| Conf. Case Protection | ❌ Failing | Critical |
| Abuse Detection | ❓ Unknown / Likely Absent | High |
| Architecture Security | ❓ Unclear | Medium |
MiFILE is missing 5 out of 7 required elements of a secure system. That’s dangerously unfit for a statewide court e-filing platform.
3. A Court Record Built on Unverified Identity
MiFile does not require multi-factor authentication or meaningful identity verification for many users. This undermines the reliability of filings and places judges and clerks in the position of relying on representations that the system itself does not verify.
Court records are only as trustworthy as the systems that generate them.
4. Standing After the Fact
MiFile allows users to add themselves to cases without verifying standing. That flips the court process on its head, granting procedural access first and relying on later cleanup.
Standing is not a clerical detail. It is a safeguard.
5. Redaction by Hope
Michigan rules require protection of personal data. MiFile relies almost entirely on manual redaction by filers, many of whom are self-represented and under duress.
A system that assumes perfect execution in imperfect conditions is not neutral. It is risky.
Why This Matters
MiFile is not a passive inbox. It is the digital front door to Michigan’s courts. When its design choices conflict with court rules, the harm does not stay technical. It becomes personal, procedural, and systemic.
Court technology must be built for the reality of conflict, abuse, and power imbalance. Anything less erodes trust in the justice system itself.
Join Clutch tomorrow for Part 2: Who Is Accountable for MiFile? Vendor Oversight Failures Inside Michigan’s Court Technology
