The attorneys actually decide the date directly with the judge, based on everyone's availability, and then the court clerk publishes the agreed-on date in the court register online. Lawyers can (and should) notify their clients, but the court doesn't do it directly. I personally think plaintiffs/defendants should have the right to be notified directly by the court about everything happening in their case, including hearing dates, but apparently that's not how it works, at least in my experience.
It was frustrating -- my lawyer was aware that I wanted to go to the hearing. I told him during a phone call discussing the order that allowed the hearing, and he assured me that he would have his office let me know the date, but it must have slipped his mind. I relied on the court register instead, but I never expected that the date would be rescheduled after it was set without being told about it.
Another reason I chose not to appeal is just how frustrating the entire process has been, particularly from my side. Communication has definitely been an issue, and there were actually two other off-the-record meetings ("status conferences") with the judges and lawyers (both the original judge and the new judge) that I wasn't aware of until after the fact, which was something I really didn't like. I'll never know what was said during those meetings because no court reporter was present.
The whole experience has really opened my eyes to how much I dislike the legal system in Michigan. It feels inherently opaque and backward by design.
I fear it’s not just Michigan. But I applaud you for doing your bit to shine a light here and keeping at it so long. These roadblocks you encountered are both poorly understood and deeply antidemocratic.
Thanks, Jeremy! The obstacles to accessing actual justice in the American court/legal system is definitely a subject that needs more sunlight. This was obviously a low-stakes FOIA case, but the roadblocks I encountered were honestly shocking. I just kept thinking through the whole thing, "Damn, what if this was a more serious case? It shouldn't be like this."
And I agree -- the legal system feels deeply anti-democratic, and also just deeply unfair by design. It opened my eyes to a flawed system that, in my opinion, leaves way too much space for the potential for corruption.
Are they not required to give notice of rescheduling to both you and your attorney?
The attorneys actually decide the date directly with the judge, based on everyone's availability, and then the court clerk publishes the agreed-on date in the court register online. Lawyers can (and should) notify their clients, but the court doesn't do it directly. I personally think plaintiffs/defendants should have the right to be notified directly by the court about everything happening in their case, including hearing dates, but apparently that's not how it works, at least in my experience.
It was frustrating -- my lawyer was aware that I wanted to go to the hearing. I told him during a phone call discussing the order that allowed the hearing, and he assured me that he would have his office let me know the date, but it must have slipped his mind. I relied on the court register instead, but I never expected that the date would be rescheduled after it was set without being told about it.
Another reason I chose not to appeal is just how frustrating the entire process has been, particularly from my side. Communication has definitely been an issue, and there were actually two other off-the-record meetings ("status conferences") with the judges and lawyers (both the original judge and the new judge) that I wasn't aware of until after the fact, which was something I really didn't like. I'll never know what was said during those meetings because no court reporter was present.
The whole experience has really opened my eyes to how much I dislike the legal system in Michigan. It feels inherently opaque and backward by design.
I fear it’s not just Michigan. But I applaud you for doing your bit to shine a light here and keeping at it so long. These roadblocks you encountered are both poorly understood and deeply antidemocratic.
Thanks, Jeremy! The obstacles to accessing actual justice in the American court/legal system is definitely a subject that needs more sunlight. This was obviously a low-stakes FOIA case, but the roadblocks I encountered were honestly shocking. I just kept thinking through the whole thing, "Damn, what if this was a more serious case? It shouldn't be like this."
And I agree -- the legal system feels deeply anti-democratic, and also just deeply unfair by design. It opened my eyes to a flawed system that, in my opinion, leaves way too much space for the potential for corruption.