REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.904 State bar; regulation by supreme court.
Sec. 904.
The supreme court has the power to provide for the organization, government, and membership of the state bar of Michigan, and to adopt rules and regulations concerning the conduct and activities of the state bar of Michigan and its members, the schedule of membership dues therein, the discipline, suspension, and disbarment of its members for misconduct, and the investigation and examination of applicants for admission to the bar.
History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963
Constitutionality Notes:
The State of Michigan, through the combined actions of the Supreme Court, the Legislature, and the State Bar, may compulsorily exact dues, and require association of attorneys, to support only those duties and functions of the State Bar which serve a compelling state interest and which cannot be accomplished by means less intrusive upon the First Amendment rights of objecting attorneys. Falk v State Bar, 418 Mich 270; 342 NW2d 504 (1983).
The regulation of the practice of law, the maintenance of high standards in the legal profession, and the discharge of the profession's duty to protect and inform the public are purposes in which the State of Michigan has a compelling interest justifying unavoidable intrusions on the First Amendment rights of attorneys; on the other hand, political and legislative activities are impermissible intrusions, as are activities designed to further commercial and economic interests of the members of the bar. Falk v State Bar, 418 Mich 270; 342 NW2d 504 (1983).
Notes of Decisions
Grievance Adm'r v. Fieger, 719 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. 2006).
· cites it 10× “6, § 5 [8] and MCL 600.904 [9] give this Court the duty and responsibility to regulate and discipline the members of the bar of this state.”
Morris & Doherty, PC v. Lockwood, 672 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “” MCL 600.904. The rules of statutory construction also apply to rules promulgated by the Michigan Supreme Court, such as the Michigan Court Rules (MCR), the MRPC, and the SBR.”
Mcneill-marks v. Midmichigan Med. Ctr.-gratiot, 891 N.W.2d 528 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“And under MCL 600.904, our Supreme Court is empowered “to provide for the organization, government, and membership of the [SBM], and to adopt rules and regulations concerning the conduct and activities of the [SBM] and its members,” including “the schedule of membership dues…”
Lawrence v. Van Aken, 182 F. App'x 442 (6th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.904 . To that end, the Michigan Supreme Court promulgated Rule 15, Section 1, which calls for the appointment of a standing committee on character and fitness within the state bar, as well as additional district character-and-fitness committees.”
Grievance Adm'r v. Lopatin, 612 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. 2000).
· cites it 2× “§ 600.904; MSA 27A.904. Exercising our rulemaking authority, we bifurcated the Michigan attorney disciplinary system in 1978, vesting the investigative and prosecutorial functions in the AGC, and the adjudicative function in the ADB.”
People v Pubrat, 548 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. 1996).
· cites it 2× “MCLA 600.904; MSA 27A.904." State Bar of Michigan v.”
Falk v. State Bar of Mich., 305 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 1981).
· cites it 3× “Under such regulations and restrictions as the supreme court may prescribe, the power of subpoena may be conferred upon the association or its officers and committees for the purpose of aiding in the cases of discipline, suspension or disbarment; the rules promulgated by the…”
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Election Commissioners, 832 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Moreover, courts have the authority and obligation to take affirmative action to enforce the ethical standards set forth by the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, and the rules apply to cases involving the imposition of attorney fees and the fees charged by attorneys.”
in Re Mardigian Est., 879 N.W.2d 313 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “MCL 600.904 provides; The supreme court has the power to provide for the organization, government, and membership of the state bar of Michigan, and to adopt rules and regulations concerning the conduct and activities of the state bar of Michigan and its members, the schedule of…”
State Bar v. Cramer, 249 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1976).
· cites it 2× “MCLA 600.904; MSA 27A.904. While all those not licensed to practice law are prohibited from doing so, the Legislature has not seen fit to define what constitutes the "practice of law", and, accordingly, "[t]he formidable task of constructing a definition of the practice of law…”
Matter of Hague, 315 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. 1982).
“10 We find, as did the Master and the Judicial Tenure Commission, that, on the facts of record, the ejection of Attorneys Horvath on May 8 and 11, and June 13, 1978; Matish on May 10, 1978; and Stevens on May 21, 1976, with explicit orders to Horvath and Stevens that they were…”
State Bar Grievance Adm'r v. Estes, 212 N.W.2d 903 (Mich. 1973).
· cites it 2× “MCLA 600.904; MSA 27A.904. Both the language of the rules and regulations adopted by this Court and this Court's actual practice confirms that this Court's review of Grievance Board fact finding is more comprehensive than a limited search for some evidence tending to support the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.