Michigan’s circuit courts, unlike the district courts, tend to be more formal and more consistent in how they communicate court procedures. But even with that structure, virtual‑hearing practices still vary widely from county to county. Some courts have fully integrated Zoom into their daily operations, while others have returned back to in‑person proceedings with only limited remote access.
For attorneys handling cases across multiple jurisdictions, understanding which circuit courts still use Zoom and which maintain YouTube livestreams is essential for planning appearances, preparing clients, and ensuring compliance with local administrative orders.
This post provides a statewide snapshot based on publicly available information from circuit court websites.
How Many Circuit Courts Still Use Zoom?
About 27% of Michigan Circuit Courts provide functional Zoom access, meaning the court’s website has an actual zoom link, meeting ID, portal, or clear instructions a party can use. Some courts with zoom access include:
Courts with no Zoom information or that appear fully in‑person: ~ 73%
Nearly three quarters of Michigan circuit courts post no Zoom information at all. Many removed COVID-era virtual hearing pages.
YouTube Livestreaming in Circuit Courts
Courts with YouTube presence: ~ 19%
About 19% of Michigan circuit courts maintain an active YouTube channel or livestream. Some courts even post the livestream on YouTube for a period of time for the public.
Courts with no YouTube presence: ~ 81%
The large majority of circuit courts do not livestream or post recordings. Instead, they may provide in-person public access only, use Zoom for public viewing instead of YouTube, or they post recordings only upon request.
Key takeaway: Circuit courts are more likely than district courts to maintain livestreams, but the format varies significantly.
Trends Michigan Attorneys Should Know
- Family Divisions are the most likely to retain Zoom.
Many circuit courts continue to use Zoom for Friend of the Court hearings, status conferences, parenting-time disputes, or support hearings.
· 6th Circuit Court (Oakland) —Judge-specific Zoom information.
· 17th Circuit Court (Kent) —Judge-specific Zoom information and YouTube channel.
· 27th Circuit Court (Lake & Newaygo) —Zoom information and Judge Dykman’s YouTube channel.
2. Criminal divisions are most likely to require in-person appearances.
This is especially true for arraignments, pretrials, pleas, sentencing, and evidentiary hearings, however some courts still use Zoom and/or virtual public livestreaming for criminal proceedings.
· 3rd Circuit Court (Wayne) —Judge-specific Zoom information and virtual streaming.
· 39th Circuit Court (Lenawee) —Judge Anzalone and Judge Olsaver each have a YouTube channel that livestreams.
· 46th Circuit Court (Crawford, Kalkaska, & Otsego) —Judge Mertz’s YouTube Channel for public livestreaming.
3. Larger counties are more consistent with Zoom and YouTube access.
Counties like Wayne, Oakland, Kent, and Ingham tend to maintain updated virtual
hearing pages, provide judge-specific Zoom links, and/or maintain YouTube channels for public access.
Practical Tips for Michigan Attorneys
1. The baseline assumption should be in-person.
Nearly three quarters of circuit courts provide no Zoom information and over 80% have no YouTube presence, in-person appearances remain the norm.
2. YouTube does not mean remote access.
Legal professionals should not advise clients that they can appear remotely based solely on a court having a public livestream. Be sure to verify independently whether Zoom participation is available for the specific hearing type.
3. Check for judge-specific access, not just court-level access.
Several courts have Zoom information that is organized by individual judges. Be sure to double check whether the judge in the court has remote access. One judge in a court may have a Zoom link; another may not.
4. Don’t assume recordings are available for research.
Most Circuit Court YouTube streams are not saved. If you need to review a prior hearing, contact the clerk’s office directly rather than assuming a recording exists online.