Legal aid urges clearer exemptions for self‑represented litigants in proposed electronic‑service rule
March 19, 2026 | Supreme Court Judicial Rulings ( Opinions ), Judicial, Michigan
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The court opened a March public hearing on ADM file 20‑08, a package of proposed amendments to multiple Michigan Court Rules that would clarify use of electronic service with an opt‑out procedure when the MI file is not available for a case type.
Kim Kramer, a lawyer at Michigan Legal Help, said the program supports expanding electronic service but raised practical concerns for people without attorneys. “A significant portion of our direct inquiries involve service and procedural requirements, which is why this rule matters a lot to us,” Kramer said. She told the court that adding procedural steps at case initiation can create a barrier for self‑represented litigants: “adding procedural complexity at case initiation is no small thing for self represented people.”
Kramer flagged three operational problems she said remain in the proposal. First, she said the six enumerated grounds for an exemption from electronic service may not be intuitive to litigants without legal training and could be missed by someone who lacks an email address or plain‑language understanding of the options. Second, Kramer warned that in an opt‑out system some litigants may simply ignore the notice; “ignoring the form, doing nothing with it could create some ambiguity around how to serve that party,” she said, asking the court to clarify downstream consequences and service procedures in that situation. Third, she urged the court to consider how the exemption process will function in high‑volume settings such as summary proceedings and small‑claims cases, where prompt responsive pleadings are not always required and handing paper back and forth is more difficult.
On security, Kramer raised concerns about encrypted‑link notifications being mistaken for phishing attempts and recommended a simple legitimacy check: require that electronic service originate only from contact information previously disclosed in the case so recipients have a reliable way to verify the source.
Kramer closed by thanking the court for attention to access‑to‑justice considerations and invited questions. The presiding justice received no follow‑up questions on the record.
The hearing record will be considered by the court as it decides whether to adopt the proposed amendments to the listed MCR provisions.
Kim Kramer, a lawyer at Michigan Legal Help, said the program supports expanding electronic service but raised practical concerns for people without attorneys. “A significant portion of our direct inquiries involve service and procedural requirements, which is why this rule matters a lot to us,” Kramer said. She told the court that adding procedural steps at case initiation can create a barrier for self‑represented litigants: “adding procedural complexity at case initiation is no small thing for self represented people.”
Kramer flagged three operational problems she said remain in the proposal. First, she said the six enumerated grounds for an exemption from electronic service may not be intuitive to litigants without legal training and could be missed by someone who lacks an email address or plain‑language understanding of the options. Second, Kramer warned that in an opt‑out system some litigants may simply ignore the notice; “ignoring the form, doing nothing with it could create some ambiguity around how to serve that party,” she said, asking the court to clarify downstream consequences and service procedures in that situation. Third, she urged the court to consider how the exemption process will function in high‑volume settings such as summary proceedings and small‑claims cases, where prompt responsive pleadings are not always required and handing paper back and forth is more difficult.
On security, Kramer raised concerns about encrypted‑link notifications being mistaken for phishing attempts and recommended a simple legitimacy check: require that electronic service originate only from contact information previously disclosed in the case so recipients have a reliable way to verify the source.
Kramer closed by thanking the court for attention to access‑to‑justice considerations and invited questions. The presiding justice received no follow‑up questions on the record.
The hearing record will be considered by the court as it decides whether to adopt the proposed amendments to the listed MCR provisions.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
