The trial court violated MCR 1.111(B)(1) by 1) requiring Appellant to make multiple interpreter requests and 2) not allowing the present interpreter who qualified under MCR 1.111(F)(2) to be used. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found that the record supports that it is not in DRRR’s best interests to return to Guatemala and should instead remain in Appellant’s custody in the United States.

The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim against the defendant and his law firm because one of the plaintiffs repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.