Opinion
May 3, 2011.
Special Orders.
Orders Entered May 3, 2011:
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 2.511 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.mi.gov/supremecourt/resources/administrative/ph.htm.
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 2.511. IMPANELING THE JURY.
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) Examination of Jurors: Discharge of Unqualified Juror. The court may conduct the examination of prospective jurors or may permit the attorneys to do so. When the court finds that a person in attendance at court as a juror is not qualified to serve as a juror, the court shall discharge him or her from further attendance and service as a juror. Exemption from jury service is the privilege of the person exempt, not a ground for challenge.
(D) Challenges for Cause. The parties may challenge jurors for cause, and the court shall rule on each challenge. A juror challenged for cause may be directed to answer questions pertinent to the inquiry. It is grounds for a challenge for cause that the person:
(1) is not qualified to be a juror;
(2)(1) is biased for or against a party or attorney;
(3)(2) shows a state of mind that will prevent the person from rendering a just verdict, or has formed a positive opinion on the facts of the case or on what the outcome should be;
(4)(3) has opinions or conscientious scruples that would improperly influence the person's verdict;
(5)(4) has been subpoenaed as a witness in the action;
(6)(5) has already sat on a trial of the same issue;
(7)(6) has served as a grand or petit juror in a criminal case based on the same transaction;
(8)(7) is related within the ninth degree (civil law) of consanguinity or affinity to one of the parties or attorneys;
(9)(8) is the guardian, conservator, ward, landlord, tenant, employer, employee, partner, or client of a party or attorney;
(10)(9) is or has been a party adverse to the challenging party or attorney in a civil action, or has complained of or has been accused by that party in a criminal prosecution;
(11)(10) has a financial interest other than that of a taxpayer in the outcome of the action;
(12)(11) is interested in a question like the issue to be tried.
(E)-(H) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment: Because MCL 600.1337 requires a court to discharge an unqualified juror regardless whether a party challenges the juror for cause, the proposed amendment of MCR 2.511 would eliminate the provision from the list of challenges that may be made for cause, and instead would clarify that the discharge must be made when the court learns that the juror is not qualified to serve. This clarification would foreclose the possibility that an unqualified juror could be allowed to sit because no one challenged his or her qualification.
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 this proposal may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically by September 1, 2011, at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or MSC_clerk courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2010-11. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted at www.courts.mi.gov/supremecourt /resources/administrative/index.htm.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF RULE 1.5 OF THE MICHIGAN RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 1.5 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 will be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for public hearings are posted at: www.courts.michigan.gov/ supremecourt/resources/administrative/ph.htm.
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 1.5. FEES.
(a)-(b) [Unchanged.]
(c) A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is rendered, except in a matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by paragraph (d) or by other law. A contingent-fee agreement shall be in writing and shall state the method by which the fee is to be determined. The agreement also shall state the amount or percentage of fees to be divided or shared among or between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Upon conclusion of a contingent-fee matter, the lawyer shall provide the client with a written statement of the outcome of the matter and, if there is a recovery, show the remittance to the client and the method of its determination. See also MCR 8.121 for additional requirements applicable to some contingent-fee agreements.
(d) A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect a contingent fee in a domestic relations matter or in a criminal matter.
(e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:
(1) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved, and approves the amount or percentage of fees to be divided or shared among the lawyers: and
(2) the total fee is reasonable.
(f) Except as otherwise allowed under this rule, a lawyer who refers a case to another lawyer in exchange for a portion of any award under subsection (e) is limited to a maximum referral fee of 25 percent of the amount recovered. However, if the referring attorney participates in the case to an extent that a greater percentage of the amount recovered should be allowed as a reflection of the referring attorney's substantial input of time or cost, or assumption of risk, the referring attorney's share of fees may exceed the maximum referral fee as agreed by the receiving attorney and as approved by the court in which the proceeding takes place.Staff Comment: The proposed amendment of MRPC 1.5 generally would limit a referral fee to 25 percent of the amount recovered in a case subject to a contingent fee agreement. The maximum fee could be increased if the referring attorney provides substantial input that merits such increased percentage.
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 September 1, 2011, at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or MSC_clerk courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2010-07. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted at www.courts.mi.gov/supremecourt/resources/ administrative/index.htm.