Law360 (August 24, 2026, 8:20 PM EDT) -- The Michigan Judicial Council heard input on its six-point strategic plan to improve the courts system Monday during a Zoom public forum.
The Michigan Judicial Council, or MJC, seeks to improve access to justice and make the courts more accessible by streamlining processes and improving access. It has identified six priority goals: trial court funding, technology, public experience and effective problem resolution, fairness and accountability, public trust and understanding and workforce excellence.
The eight speakers at the public forum emphasized the need for transparency and better access to court proceedings and information through technology that is currently available but some courts opt not to employ.
"Every court hearing, by default, should be livestreamed and digitally recorded," said attorney Nicholas Somberg of Somberg Law PLLC. "The courts are supposed to be public."
Somberg said other than sensitive hearings, especially those involving minors, there is no reason not to livestream hearings and offer remote access. The technology — cameras, an internet connection and a cloud subscription — is already available.
"A mother in Detroit should be able to watch her son's hearing in Marquette and a journalist should be able to watch a small court up north as easily as they can a court in Detroit or Lansing," Somberg said.
Somberg and disability advocate Brandee Ritsema both pointed to what they see as unequal access to remote court access and court information.
"An individual judge can deny Zoom access just because," Somberg told the MJC, adding that he has had to drive several hours to a court for what he knows will be a five-minute adjournment because the judge won't allow a remote hearing.
Ritsema, who is disabled, told the MJC that for her, access has varied significantly depending on the court and the judge. She held herself up as an example of what happens when access to courts "depends on individual discretion instead of equal standards."
She described a situation in which she requested to attend a hearing via Zoom, citing her disability as a reason, and was denied only to find that others were allowed to attend the same hearing remotely.
"Zoom can be denied when I need it for a disability, permitted for others and used by the judge, and required of me only when the court chooses. How is that equal access?" Ritsema asked the MJC.
Ritsema said audio recordings of hearings should be available for the public as well as opposed to people requesting them being told to pay for and wait for a written transcript. For a disabled person, Ritsema said, not having access to audio can be a serious issue.
"Disability access is not about what format the court prefers," Ritsema said. "Judges can restrict our recordings, deny us access to their recordings, then tell us to pay for a transcript."
Samantha Hallman, who has an appeal pending in the Sixth Circuit regarding the public's First Amendment right to access courtroom recordings, said citizens need to be assured they can observe and access the court system without fear of retaliation. Like Somberg, she called for court livestreams to be the rule instead of the exception and said citizens should have access to court audio and video recordings.
"This technology is already being used by trial courts using equipment that was paid for by public tax dollars," Hallman said.
Doing that, Hallman said, would move the MJC toward its technology goal of having all Michigan courts embrace new technology to improve access. The way the current statute is written, Hillman said, allows judges to circumvent all the MJC's objectives.
"Some courts needlessly require court reporters to transform accurate, verbatim recordings into written transcripts," Hallman said, noting that process takes longer and costs more than "simply sharing the digital record with us."
As Ritsema and Hallman spoke, probate advocate and
Michigan Supreme Court candidate Jody White shook her head in agreement.
White spoke about transparency in the courts and specifically how she has seen grieving families get taken advantage of by unscrupulous attorneys and a judicial system that is difficult to navigate.
"The principles have to extend past the bench to everyone," White said. "A lawyer's oath is not a courtesy, it's a standard and I've watched this gap up close."
White said that often when people dealing with the probate court file complaints against a judge, attorney or court administrator, the complaints and the follow-up on those complaints are not made public. White called that a lack of transparency and said it is a problem that needs to be a top priority of the MJC.
Michigan Supreme Court candidate Thomas Howe said Michigan probate courts are "running a [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] theft ring operation" and said the Michigan Supreme Court needs to keep a more watchful eye on probate courts and follow through with disciplining bad actors.
Kevin Bowling, who identified himself as a 48-year court administrator, said he supports all the MJC's objectives and urged the council to stay focused on the needs of the people as they plan judicial improvement strategies.
"You should measure success by the outcomes experienced by the people Michigan courts serve," Bowling said. "The real questions are: Can people understand and navigate the court process, are they treated fairly and respectfully and can their cases be resolved without unnecessary delay?"
The MJC makes recommendations to the Michigan Supreme Court on matters pertinent to the administration of justice and develops a strategic plan for Michigan's judicial branch.
--Editing by Stephen Berg.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.