The Michigan Supreme Court has scheduled a public administrative hearing for May 20, 2026 at 9:30 a.m., covering eight proposed rule changes. Two deserve particular scrutiny: a structural amendment to attorney discipline oversight that eliminates officer term limits on the AGC and ADB, and a new provision that routes presidential election recount disputes directly to the Supreme Court as original jurisdiction. Registration to speak closes May 15.
Eight items are on the May 20 agenda. Speakers participate via Zoom; the public may watch on the Court’s YouTube channel. The registration deadline to speak is May 15, 2026.
Proposed amendments to MCR 9.108 and 9.110 would address mid-term vacancies on the AGC and ADB and eliminate the two-full-term officer limit for both bodies. Consolidating officer authority without term constraints is a structural change to the oversight of Michigan’s approximately 44,000 licensed attorneys.
MCR 7.306 and 7.306/2024-39 would allow presidential election recount disputes to be filed directly in the Michigan Supreme Court as original actions. The stated rationale is reducing judicial barriers to recount outcomes. The practical effect is concentrating this category of dispute at the highest available level, bypassing the normal appellate ladder.
MCR 1.111 would extend free foreign language interpretation to civil cases. This is the most direct access-to-justice change on the agenda. Civil proceedings — housing, custody, debt, family matters — currently carry no guaranteed interpretation right in Michigan.
MCR 7.312 would establish rule-based briefing deadlines in leave-granted and MOAA cases where indigent defense counsel must be appointed. Inconsistent timelines in these cases have created procedural gaps for defendants with appointed counsel. The proposed rule codifies what should already be standard practice.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s public administrative hearing process is one of the few direct-access points the public has to court rulemaking. Eight items on the May 20 agenda range from technical procedural cleanup to structural changes with consequences that extend well past the docket. Not all eight carry equal weight. Some warrant a read and nothing more. A few warrant a closer look and, depending on your situation or practice, a public comment before May 15.
Here is what is on the table, with analysis of which items carry the most consequence and why.
The Two Items That Deserve Your Attention First
2024-19: Changes to How Attorney Discipline Oversight Is Run
The proposed amendments to MCR 9.108 and 9.110 cover two distinct issues bundled into one docket number. The first is procedural: how mid-term vacancies on the AGC and ADB are filled. The second is structural: the proposal would eliminate the two-full-term officer limit for both bodies.
Officer term limits on oversight bodies exist for a reason. Rotation requirements prevent the accumulation of informal authority in the hands of a small number of people who have held the same position for years. They create regular turnover in institutional leadership, which tends to prevent the kind of insularity that erodes the legitimacy of oversight processes over time.
Removing that limit for the AGC and ADB officers is not a minor housekeeping change. These are the bodies that decide whether Michigan attorneys face formal discipline, suspension, or disbarment. The people who run them shape the culture of how those decisions get made.
The AGC and ADB are the accountability layer for Michigan’s roughly 44,000 licensed attorneys. If the argument for removing officer term limits is that the bodies need continuity, that argument should be made explicitly in public comment — and it should be answered. Continuity and accountability are not the same thing.
2024-30 / 2024-39: Presidential Election Recount Disputes Go Directly to the Michigan Supreme Court
This one is worth reading twice. The proposal would allow new original actions related to recounts or proposed recounts of ballots in a presidential election to be filed directly in the Michigan Supreme Court. The Court’s own summary of the rationale: reducing “judicial-related barriers that may interfere with the outcome of such a recount or proposed recount.”
What this does, structurally: it bypasses the normal appellate path for a specific, high-stakes category of election dispute. Rather than originating in a trial court, moving through the Court of Appeals, and potentially reaching the Supreme Court on leave — the standard ladder — presidential recount disputes would land at the top immediately as original actions.
There are arguments on both sides of this. Speed in election disputes matters; the windows are narrow and delays in lower courts can effectively moot an outcome. On the other hand, original jurisdiction at the Supreme Court means a single tier of review with no lower-court record to build from. Concentrating that much discretion in one body, for one category of dispute, for one type of election, is not a neutral design choice.
It is also worth noting that this rule is being proposed in April 2026, ahead of a midterm election cycle with a presidential election cycle following in 2028. The timing is not accidental. The question of whether the design is good policy is exactly what public comment is for.
The Remaining Six: What They Do and Who Should Pay Attention
Remote Judicial Participation
Clarifies when, from where, and how a judicial officer may participate remotely. Post-pandemic remote participation by judges has proceeded without clear rule-based standards in some contexts. This amendment codifies the framework. Courts and practitioners who have encountered inconsistent remote-participation decisions will find this relevant.
Post-Judgment Relief and Referee Recommendations
Would require courts to consider a motion for post-judgment relief when the underlying order was entered following a referee’s recommendation and before the time for judicial review under MCR 3.991 has elapsed. This addresses a procedural gap that has effectively foreclosed post-judgment motions in some family court matters where the order followed a referee. Relevant to family law practitioners and litigants navigating referee-to-judge review timelines.
Law Student and Foreign Attorney Practice Expansion
Would allow law students and recent graduates to staff certain legal programs and appear for indigent persons in all Michigan courts. It would also allow certain foreign attorneys to count time practicing under a special certificate toward permanent bar admission without examination. The indigent representation expansion is the part with the broadest public interest implications — expanding the pool of supervised practitioners available to underserved populations is an access-to-justice measure with real downstream effects on case capacity.
Judicial Recording and Photography Rules
Would clarify a judge’s responsibility to prevent unauthorized broadcasting, recording, or photography in or out of the courtroom during sessions or recesses. The phrase “or out of the courtroom” is doing work here — it extends the judge’s recording-management obligation beyond the physical courtroom during court sessions. Media organizations and public interest advocates who cover courts will want to read the full text of this amendment before it is adopted.
Free Foreign Language Interpretation in Civil Cases
The most direct access-to-justice change on the agenda. Currently, free interpretation is constitutionally and statutorily mandated in criminal proceedings. Civil cases have no equivalent guarantee in Michigan. People navigating housing evictions, custody disputes, debt collection actions, protective orders, and immigration-adjacent civil matters have faced the requirement to secure and pay for their own interpretation or do without. This amendment would change that. Watch the details of the rule text — specifically whether any categories of civil proceedings are carved out, and how courts are expected to fund the expansion.
Briefing Deadlines for Indigent Defendants in Leave-Granted Cases
Would establish rule-based briefing deadlines in leave-granted and MOAA cases where counsel must be appointed for an indigent defendant. The gap this addresses is real: when the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court grants leave or takes a MOAA action in a case where the defendant is indigent and unrepresented, the timeline for appointing counsel and setting briefing schedules has been handled inconsistently. Defendants who have won the right to appellate review should not lose ground on that review because the system has no rule governing what happens next. Codifying a deadline structure is the minimum the rule should accomplish.
What to Do Before May 15
The hearing is open to the public via YouTube. Speaking requires registration by May 15. Written comments require no registration and become part of the administrative record for each docket.
If you are an attorney, a legal services organization, a journalist covering Michigan courts, or a person who has been directly affected by gaps in attorney discipline oversight, civil interpretation access, or indigent appellate representation — written comment is the mechanism. It does not require appearing on camera. It does not require three minutes of testimony. It requires writing what you know, directed at a specific agenda item, and submitting it before the deadline.
The contact is ADMComment@courts.mi.gov. The deadline is May 15, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. The hearing is May 20.
Eight items. Two that warrant more scrutiny than they are likely to get. One that is the most meaningful access-to-justice change the Court has considered in this rulemaking cycle. The record is open.
Sources
Williams, Rita, Michigan Supreme Court May 20 Public Hearing: Eight Rule Changes That Deserve More Attention Than They’re Getting, Clutch Justice (Apr. 30, 2026), https://clutchjustice.com//2026/04/30/msc-public-hearing-may-2026/.
Williams, R. (2026, April 30). Michigan Supreme Court May 20 public hearing: Eight rule changes that deserve more attention than they’re getting. Clutch Justice. https://clutchjustice.com//2026/04/30/msc-public-hearing-may-2026/
Williams, Rita. “Michigan Supreme Court May 20 Public Hearing: Eight Rule Changes That Deserve More Attention Than They’re Getting.” Clutch Justice, 30 Apr. 2026, clutchjustice.com//2026/04/30/msc-public-hearing-may-2026/.
Williams, Rita. “Michigan Supreme Court May 20 Public Hearing: Eight Rule Changes That Deserve More Attention Than They’re Getting.” Clutch Justice, April 30, 2026. https://clutchjustice.com//2026/04/30/msc-public-hearing-may-2026/.
