Carrie:  As to each of the matters, Proposed amendment to Code of Judicial Conduct: a. Support the motion Amendment of MCR 7.210: a. Support the motion HB 5191: a. Support the motion Richmond M. Riggs From: Carrie Sharlow [mailto:CSHARLOW@mail.michbar.org] Dear Committee Members: Please respond by 4:30 PM TODAY Monday, January 9, 2012. As to each motion, your voting choices are: A. Support the Motion; B. Oppose the Motion; C. Abstain. a. 2005-11 â Proposed Alternative Amendments of Code of Judicial Conduct Two alternative proposals are published for comment in this order. The first, Alternative A, combines Canon 4 and Canon 5 so that the obligations imposed with regard to extrajudicial activities are the same for both law-related and nonlaw-related functions. The proposal also clarifies various allowed and prohibited fundraising activities. The second proposal is modeled loosely on the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct. The most recent iteration of the ABA Model Code splits the existing language of Michiganâs Canon 4 through Canon 6 into 15 separate rules. For purposes of the proposed language of Alternative B, however, the separate model rules are combined in the proposed revised text of Michiganâs current two Canons, and would retain nearly all the language that currently exists in Canon 4 and Canon 5. But the proposal is similar to the ABA Model Code in that proposed Canon 4 would begin with a description of the underlying foundational requirements for any extrajudicial activities (i.e., participation in the activity must not undermine the judgeâs independence, integrity, or impartiality) and other general requirements, and then would set out the allowed fundraising and other financial activities in Canon 5. Either proposal would eliminate the language of Canon 7 that prohibits a judge from accepting a testimonial, and would clarify Canon 2 so that activities allowed under Canon 4 and Canon 5 would not be considered a violation of the principle of use of the prestige of office. Both proposals contain proposed language that is intended to clarify the scope of activities in which a judge may participate, especially if those activities also serve a fundraising purpose. In Alternative A, this language is included at Canon 4D; in Alternative B, this language is included at Canon 5A(3). MOTION: Support Alternative A, with added language to Canon 2. G.: Except as allowed in Canon 6 for campaign purposes no judge or other person, . . . or otherwise. b. 2010-25 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.210 of the Michigan Court Rules This amendment was proposed by James Neuhard, former director of the State Appellate Defender Office. The proposed amendment would require trial courts to become the depository for exhibits offered in evidence (whether those exhibits are admitted or not), instead of requiring parties to submit exhibits offered in evidence when a case is submitted to the Court of Appeals on a claim of appeal. MOTION: The Committee opposes this proposed amendment on the following grounds: (a) there is not a known issue generally with the maintenance and forward of exhibits such that a rule of general application needs to be modified; (b) the proposal would impose costs and burden upon the courts, which are already over-burdened; (c) the proposal creates a potential conflict with MCR 2.518 and existing file management standards. The Committee also notes that (i) a similar rule exists for appeals to circuit court, MCR 7.109(c); and (ii) if the perceived problem relates to appointed counsel for indigent parties, a more targeted solution might be a better solution, such as requiring the delivery of all trial exhibits to appellate counsel before fees are approved (such as proposed in File No. 2010-15, Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.005 of the Michigan Court Rules). The countering position believes the proposed amendment is appropriate and addresses legitimate concerns. The countering position would even extend the requirement on the trial court to the time allowed to file leave to appeal in recognition that pre-plea legal issues sometimes merit appellate review. c. 2010-26 - Proposed Amendment of Rule 7.210 and Rule 7.212 of the Michigan Court Rules MOTION: Support 7.210 but in paragraph 2b, change âshallâ to âmayâ to give the trial court discretion. d. HB 5191 (LeBlanc) Courts; judges; magistrates; require to be licensed attorneys. Amends sec. 8507 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.8507). MOTION: Support. Although the committee recognizes the existing worth and value of non-lawyer magistrates, a best practice analysis would seemingly indicate a law degree should be required in conjunction with the judicial duties required of a magistrate. Carrie A. Sharlow Administrative Assistant, Governmental Relations State Bar of Michigan Michael Franck Building 306 Townsend Street Lansing, MI 48933 P: 517-346-6317 F: 517-482-6248 |