PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF RULES 9.108 9.109, 2005-28 (Mich. 2005)

Proposed Amendment of Rules 9.108 and 9.109 of the Michigan Court Rules.

ADM File No. 2005-28.Supreme Court of Michigan.
July 13, 2005.

On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering amendments of Rules 9.108 and 9.109 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter also will be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for public hearings are posted at www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt.

Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.

[Additions are indicated by underlining and deletions are indicated by strikeover.]
Rule 9.108 Attorney Grievance Commission

(A)-(D) [Unchanged.]

(E) Powers and Duties. The commission has the power and duty to:

(1) recommend attorneys to the Supreme Court for appointment as administratorand deputy administrator;

(2)-(8) [Unchanged.]

Rule 9.109 Grievance Administrator

(A) Appointment. The administrator and the deputyadministrator must be an attorneys. The commission shall recommend one or more candidates for appointment as administratorand deputy administrator. The Supreme Court shall appoint the administratorand the deputy administrator, may terminate their appointments at any time with or without cause, and shall determine their salaryies and the other terms and conditions of their employment.

(B)-(C)[Unchanged.]

Staff Comment: The proposed changes allow the grievance administrator, not the Court, to appoint a deputy administrator.

The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court.

A copy of this order will be given to the Secretary of the State Bar and to the State Court Administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on these proposals may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically by November 1, 2005, at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2005-28. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted at www.courts.mi.gov/supremecourt/resources/administrative/index.htm.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

PEOPLE v. RAY, 43 Mich. App. 45 (1972)

204 N.W.2d 38 PEOPLE v. RAY Docket No. 12187.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided September 27,…

9 years ago

DETROIT EDISON v. PSC, 221 Mich. App. 370 (1997)

562 N.W.2d 224 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY v PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Docket Nos. 177054, 177055, 177062,…

9 years ago

PEOPLE v. BUTTS, 144 Mich. App. 637 (1985)

376 N.W.2d 176 PEOPLE v BUTTS Docket No. 80186.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided August 5,…

9 years ago

PEOPLE v. ZUNIGA, 56 Mich. App. 231 (1974)

223 N.W.2d 652 PEOPLE v ZUNIGA Docket No. 17453.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided October 21,…

9 years ago

PEOPLE v. SIDNEY SMITH, 106 Mich. App. 310 (1981)

308 N.W.2d 176 PEOPLE v SIDNEY SMITH Docket No. 50618.Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided March…

9 years ago

PEOPLE v. McELHANEY, 215 Mich. App. 269 (1996)

545 N.W.2d 18 PEOPLE v McELHANEY Docket No. 162330.Michigan Court of Appeals.Submitted November 15, 1995,…

9 years ago