RulesofCivilProcedure.com Civil Procedure · Every State

Rule 2.407.Videoconferencing

Current through May 1, 2026 · Last verified July 6, 2026

In one sentenceRule 2.407 sets the statewide framework for holding Michigan court proceedings by videoconference, listing the factors a court weighs before requiring or allowing it, guaranteeing a right to request an in-person appearance, and requiring notice, confidential attorney-client communication, and public access to whatever happens on screen.

Full Text of Rule 2.407

Text sizeJump to: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

(A) Definitions. In this subchapter:
(1) “Participants” include, but are not limited to, parties, counsel, and subpoenaed witnesses, but do not include the general public.
(2) “Videoconferencing” means the use of an interactive technology, including a remote digital platform, that sends video, voice, and/or data signals over a transmission circuit so that two or more individuals or groups can communicate with each other simultaneously using video codecs, monitors, cameras, audio microphones, and audio speakers. It includes use of a remote video platform through an audio-only option.
(B) Application.
(1) All proceedings occurring by videoconferencing, including the manner and extent of the use of videoconferencing, are subject to requirements, standards, and guidelines published by the State Court Administrative Office and the criteria set forth in subrule (C).
(2) Consistent with these rules and subject to subrule (4), courts may determine the manner and extent of the use of videoconferencing technology and may require participants to attend court proceedings by videoconferencing technology.
(3) This rule does not supersede a participant’s ability to participate by telephonic means under MCR 2.402.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall preclude a participant from requesting to physically appear in person for any proceeding. If there is a request to appear in person, or a participant is found to be unable to adequately use the technology, to hear or understand or be heard or understood, the presiding judge and any attorney of record for said participant must appear in person with the participant for said proceeding. Subject to subrule (5), the court must allow other participants to participate using videoconferencing technology.
(5) Nothing in this rule shall prevent the court from determining that a case is not suited for videoconferencing, and may require any hearing, even a proceeding categorized as presumptively subject to videoconferencing technology, to be conducted in person.
(a) In determining whether a particular case or proceeding should be conducted by videoconferencing technology or ruling on an objection to the use of videoconferencing technology, the court shall consider the factors listed in subrule (C).
(b) The court shall state its decision and reasoning, either in writing or on the record, when requiring in-person proceedings in each case where there is a presumption for the use of videoconferencing technology.
(6) Courts must provide reasonable notice to participants of the time and mode of a proceeding. If a proceeding will be held using videoconferencing technology, the court must provide reasonable notice of the way(s) to access that proceeding.
(7) Courts must allow a party and their counsel to engage in confidential communication during a proceeding being conducted by videoconferencing technology.
(8) If, during the course of a videoconference proceeding, the court or a participant is unable to proceed due to failure of technology, the court must reschedule the proceeding and promptly notify the participants of the rescheduled date and time and whether the proceeding will be held using videoconferencing technology or in person.
(9) All proceedings that are held using videoconferencing technology or communication equipment must be recorded verbatim by the court with the exception of hearings that are not required to be recorded by law.
(10) Courts must provide access to a proceeding held using videoconferencing technology to the public either during the proceeding or immediately after via access to a video recording of the proceeding, unless the proceeding is closed or access would otherwise be limited by statute or rule.
(C) Criteria for Videoconferencing. In determining in a particular case the use of videoconferencing technology and the manner of proceeding with videoconferencing, the court shall consider the following factors:
(1) The capabilities of the court and the parties to participate in a videoconference.
(2) Whether a specific articulable prejudice would result.
(3) The convenience of the parties and the proposed witness(es), the cost of producing the witness in person in relation to the importance of the offered testimony, and the potential to increase access to courts by allowing parties and/or their counsel to appear by videoconferencing technology.
(4) Whether the procedure would allow for full and effective cross-examination, especially when the cross-examination would involve documents or other exhibits.
(5) Whether the court has reason to believe that the participants in this hearing will not be able to maintain the dignity, solemnity, and decorum of court while using videoconferencing technology, or that the use of videoconferencing technology will undermine the integrity, fairness, or effectiveness of the proceeding.
(6) Whether a physical liberty or other fundamental interest is at stake in the proceeding.
(7) Whether the court sufficiently control the participants in this hearing or matter so as to effectively extend the courtroom to the remote location.
(8) Whether the use of videoconferencing technology presents the person at a remote location in a diminished or distorted sense that negatively reflects upon the individual at the remote location to persons present in the courtroom.
(9) Whether the person appearing by videoconferencing technology presents a significant security risk to transport and be present physically in the courtroom.
(10) Whether the parties or witness(es) have waived personal appearance or stipulated to videoconferencing.
(11) The proximity of the videoconferencing request date to the proposed appearance date.
(12) Any other factors that the court may determine to be relevant.
(D) Request for videoconferencing and Participant Contact Information.
(1) A participant who requests the use of videoconferencing technology shall ensure that the equipment available at the remote location meets the technical and operational standards established by the State Court Administrative Office.
(2) A participant who will be using videoconferencing technology must provide the court with the participant’s contact information, including mobile phone number(s) and email address(es), in advance of the court date when videoconferencing technology will be used. A court may collect the contact information using an SCAO-approved form. The contact information form used under this provision shall be confidential. An email address for an attorney must be the same address as the one on file with the State Bar of Michigan.
(3) There is no motion fee for requests submitted under this rule.
(E) Notwithstanding any other provision in this rule, until further order of the Court, AO No. 2012-7 is suspended.
End

Amendment History

Michigan tracks the orders that adopt and amend its Court Rules in a separate administrative record rather than printing a history note beneath each rule in the compiled rules text reproduced here. The text above is verified current through the source’s own May 1, 2026 update; for the full order-by-order history of this rule, see the Michigan Supreme Court’s rules and orders page.

Plain-English Summary

Videoconferencing, as this rule defines it, covers any interactive platform that lets two or more people see and hear each other in real time, including an audio-only option on a video platform; it reaches parties, lawyers, and subpoenaed witnesses, but not the general public. Courts can decide how much to use it and can require participants to appear that way, subject to standards the State Court Administrative Office publishes and the criteria this rule lists. But no one is locked out of appearing in person: a participant can always ask to appear physically, and if someone truly cannot use the technology, or asks to appear in person, the judge and that participant's own attorney must also appear in person for the proceeding, while everyone else can still join remotely. A court can likewise decide that a whole case, or even a proceeding normally handled by video, needs to happen in person, and has to explain that call in writing or on the record.

Before deciding how a given hearing should run, the court weighs a long list of factors: whether the technology is up to the task, whether real prejudice would result, the convenience and cost involved, whether cross-examination (especially with documents or exhibits) would still work, whether the proceeding's dignity and integrity would hold up, whether physical liberty or another fundamental interest is on the line, and several more practical concerns about control, security, and timing. Courts must give reasonable notice of how a proceeding will run and how to access it, must let a party and lawyer communicate confidentially during the proceeding, must reschedule and notify everyone if the technology fails midstream, and must record every videoconference or telephonic proceeding verbatim (apart from hearings the law doesn't require to be recorded). And because these are still public court proceedings, the public generally gets access to them, live or through a recording, unless the proceeding is otherwise closed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a Michigan court force me to appear by videoconference?

A court can require it for many proceedings, but you can always ask to appear in person instead. If you can't adequately use the technology, or you ask to appear in person, the judge and your own attorney must appear in person with you for that proceeding.

What factors does a court weigh in deciding whether to use videoconferencing?

Among others: the technology available, whether real prejudice would result, cost and convenience, whether cross-examination would still be effective, whether the proceeding's dignity and integrity would hold up, and whether a fundamental interest like physical liberty is at stake.

Is a videoconference court hearing open to the public?

Generally yes. Courts must provide public access to a videoconferenced proceeding, live or through a recording afterward, unless the proceeding is otherwise closed or access is limited by statute or rule.

What happens if the technology fails during a videoconference hearing?

The court must reschedule the proceeding and promptly notify the participants of the new date and time and whether it will again be held by videoconference or in person.

Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the official Michigan Court Rules (MCR 2.407). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Michigan (Mich. Const. 1963, art. VI, § 5). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 6, 2026. · Official source
Also known as: videoconferencing Michigan courtremote hearing Michiganzoom hearing Michigan courtright to appear in person Michigan