Appellate practitioners and defenders press court to ease appendix rules and address transcript burdens on remands

The court considered proposed changes to MCR 7.215 in two related strands: (1) eliminating the requirement to attach copies of unpublished opinions cited in briefs filed in the Court of Appeals, and (2) clarifying procedures when the Court of Appeals remands and affords supplemental briefing in criminal and termination‑of‑parental‑rights cases.

Lisa Speaker, an appellate practitioner, said the requirement to attach unpublished opinions to an appendix is burdensome now that users can access opinions online. “In this age of easy access to unpublished opinions from the Michigan court of appeals, it's really burdensome and unnecessary to attach physical ... the opinions to our appendix,” she said, and recommended that briefs include the Court of Appeals docket number and the court of appeals case site citation rather than Westlaw or Lexis citations so both attorneys and self‑represented litigants can find the authority.

Sheldon Larky echoed the point and suggested that when parties cite unpublished opinions the court should require the case name, docket number, and date of decision to make retrieval straightforward.

On remands and supplemental briefing, Jacqueline McCann of the State Appellate Defender's Office asked the court to align the proposed language with existing rules (7.208 and 7.211) and to address who bears the practical burdens of obtaining transcripts when the Court of Appeals retains jurisdiction. McCann told the court that transcript costs have risen substantially: “The cost of transcripts has gone up substantially in the past year. It's over doubled,” and that expedited transcripts may be even more expensive and difficult to obtain within short deadlines. She proposed that in the limited instances where the Court of Appeals retains jurisdiction and additional work is required in the trial court, the trial court or county should pay for necessary transcripts rather than requiring the appellant to bear that cost.

A justice asked follow‑up questions about whether to address delays by lengthening timeframes (for example, 56 days was discussed) versus redefining service language; the exchange did not produce a decision on the record.

The court received these comments and closed the item with no immediate action recorded on the hearing transcript.