Get in touch
SOUTH JERSEY
PHILADELPHIA
FLORIDA

Michigan’s Legal Defense Fund Act

Samuel D. Jackson • Jun 28, 2023
  • What is Michigan’s Legal Defense Fund Act (“LDFA”)?

The LDFA is a Michigan law that requires elected officials in the State of Michigan to make certain disclosures if they solicit funds from the public to pay for their legal defense in a matter relating to how they carried out their official duties.

  • Where can the full text of the Legal Defense Fund Act (“LDFA”) be found?

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-Act-288-of-2008.pdf 

  • Who does the LDFA apply to?

The LDFA applies to individuals who hold an elective office in state or local government in Michigan. 

  • MCLS §15.223(b).
  • How are disclosures made?

Statements are filed with the Michigan Secretary of State. 

  • MCLS §15.525(1)
  • What goes into the disclosure statements?

There are a few types of disclosure statements that need to be filed. When the fund is formed, a statement of organization is filed. Transaction reports are filed on a quarterly basis. When the fund is closed, a statement of dissolution is filed. 

The statement of organization includes the following information:

(a) The name, street address, and telephone number of the legal defense fund. The name of the legal defense fund shall include the first and last names of the elected official who is the beneficiary of the legal defense fund and the words "legal defense fund". 

(b) The name, street address, and telephone number of the individual designated as the treasurer of the legal defense fund. 

(c) The name and address of the financial institution in which money of the legal defense fund is or is intended to be deposited. 

(d) The full name of and office held by the elected official who is the beneficiary of the legal defense fund. 

(e) A description of the criminal, civil, or administrative action arising directly out of the conduct of the elected official's duties for which a contribution to or expenditure from the legal defense fund was made.

  • MCLS §15.525(2)(a)-(e).

Transaction reports include the following information:

(a) The legal defense fund's name, address, and telephone number and the full name, residential and business addresses, and telephone numbers of the legal defense fund's treasurer. 

(b) The following information about each person from whom a contribution is received during the covered period: 

(i) The person's full name. 

(ii) The person's street address. 

(iii) The amount contributed. 

(iv) The date on which each contribution was received. 

(v) The cumulative amount contributed by that person. 

(vi) If the person is an individual whose cumulative contributions are more than $100.00, the person's occupation, employer, and principal place of business. 

(c) The following information itemized as to each expenditure from the legal defense fund that exceeds $50.00 and as to expenditures made to 1 person that cumulatively total $50.00 or more during a covered period: 

(i) The amount of the expenditure. 

(ii) The name and address of the person to whom the expenditure is made. 

(iii) The purpose of the expenditure. 

(iv) The date of the expenditure.

  • MCLS §15.527(1)(a)-(c).

Transaction reports must also include a verification statement signed by the treasurer, similar to the following example: 

I, ____________, am the treasurer of the [elected official’s full name] Legal Defense Fund. I have used all reasonable diligence in preparing this report, and to the best of my knowledge, it is true and complete.

  • When are disclosures made?

The statement of organization is filed within 10 days after the legal defense fund receives its first contribution, OR the fund first spends money behalf of the elected official, whichever is earlier.

  • MCLS §15.525(1).

The statement of dissolution must be filed when the fund is dissolved.

  • MCLS §15.525(5).

Transaction reports are filed on a quarterly basis, according to the schedule below:

Transaction reports for following period:

Must be filed by:

January 1 to March 31

April 25

April 1 to June 30

July 25

July 1 to September 30

October 25

October 1 to December 31

January 25


  • MCLS §15.527(2).

  • What are the penalties for failing to make a required disclosure?

For failing to file a timely statement of organization:

There is a $10 per day late fee, with a maximum of $300. 

An elected official who fails to file at all can be found guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by imprisonment for up to 93 days or a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

  • MCLS §15.525(4).

For failing to file a timely transaction report:

There is a $25 per day late fee, with a maximum of $500, unless the fund has received a contribution of over $10,000 in the last 2 years, in which case there is a schedule of higher fines as set forth at length in the LDFA, with a maximum of $1,000.

A treasurer who fails to file 2 transaction reports, where both reports remain unfiled for over 30 days can be found guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by imprisonment for up to 93 days or a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

  • MCLS §15.529(1).
  • What should an elected official do if he failed to make a required disclosure?

Immediately file a disclosure statement with the Secretary of State

  • What is the likely outcome if an elected official makes a late disclosure?

For a late statement of organization:

If no charges have been filed, the most likely outcome is that the official will pay a late fee. If the disclosure statement is filed more than a month late, the fee will not exceed $300. Criminal charges are unlikely if the official files the disclosure statement prior to being criminally charged. 

This prediction is based on the wording of the statute, which merely imposes a late fee if an official fails to file “as required by this section” (the overall section describing how to file the disclosure statement), but imposes a criminal penalty for an official who fails to file the disclosure statement “under this subsection” (the specific subsection addressing late and missing filings). In other words, if an official fails to file the disclosure statement, then a late fee is imposed at the time that the late statement is filed. But if an official also fails to file the statement late, then a criminal penalty can be imposed. If both situations were treated the same way, then there would be no reason to cap the late fee at $300, since the criminal fine can be as high as $1,000.


  • MCLS §15.525(4).

For a late transaction report:

If there is only one overdue transaction report, then a fine is likely to be the only punishment. If there are two overdue transaction reports, but the second report is less than 30 days overdue, then a fine is still likely to be the only punishment. If there are two or more overdue transaction reports, and at least two of them are more than 30 days overdue, then criminal charges may be filed.

  • MCLS §15.529(1)-(2).

  • What else should an elected official seeking donations for legal defense be aware of?
  • An elected official may not solicit or accept any contributions to pay for a legal defense in an action relating to their official duties unless the contributions are made to a fund that complies with the LDFA.* MCLS §15.533(1).
  • Anonymous contributions to legal defense funds are not allowed. Any anonymous donations must be given to a 501(c)(3) charity and documented with a receipt, and may not be deposited into the legal fund account.* MCLS §15.533(2).
  • Straw donations (where Party A gives money to Party B for Party B to contribute to the legal defense fund) are not permitted.* MCLS §15.533(3).
  • All the money legal defense fund must be kept in a single account, separate from any other money.* MCLS §15.533(4).
  • All records for the fund must be kept for 5 years. Failure to do so can result in a civil fine of up to $1,000. MCLS §15.527(6).
  • Knowingly submitting false information in one of the disclosure forms is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail or a fine of up to $5,000, or both. MCLS §15.527(7).
  • Filing an incomplete transaction report can result in a civil fine of up to $1,000. MCLS §15.529(3).
  • Money from the legal defense fund may only be used to pay for administration of the fund, attorney fees, or related legal costs.* MCLS §15.5235(1).
  • The fund cannot be used to pay for direct or indirect payments for media purchases, media consulting, or mass mailings.* MCLS §15.5235(1).
  • The fund can only be used to pay for the legal defense of the one elected official who established it.* MCLS §15.5235(1).


* Violation of any of the rules marked with the * is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail or a fine of up to $1,000, or both, or a fine of $10,000 if violated by a corporation or some other entity besides an individual. MCLS §15.533(5), MCLS §15.5235(2).

More News & Resources

By Joseph D. Lento 03 May, 2024
Nurses facing abuse or other misconduct charges over inappropriate patient restraint need skilled defense representation.
By Lawrence A. Katz 26 Apr, 2024
The news has recently had almost daily stories about the social media app, Tik Tok, and Congress’ threat to make using it illegal unless its ownership is transferred from its present Chinese owners. The argument for requiring the removal of Chinses owners is that they require access to personal and confidential information and that poses a national security risk. I have seen tech experts who question whether transferring ownership will actually eliminate that threat. They suggest that if the computer code for the Tik Top app already contains a “backdoor” enabling the secret access to information, changing ownership will not correct the problem. This blog is not intended to discuss those issues. Instead, we will address the claims by many that preventing people from using Tik Tok is a First Amendment free speech violation. I suggest that it is not. This is a tidbit to keep for your next Trivia Night. The First Amendment was originally only intended to prohibit the federal government from interfering with free speech. It was not until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, that the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited all levels of government (states and local governments) from interfering with free speech. A government can limit speech if doing so is content neutral. As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “A regulation of speech is facially content based under the First Amendment if it ‘target[s] speech based on its communicative content’—that is, if it ‘applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.’” City of Austin v. Reagan Nat'l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022). Thus, where a transit system prohibited all advertisements on its premises, the Court held that the limit was constitutional because it applied to all subjects and opinions. In contrast, a limitation on a single message is not permitted. In Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. SEPTA, 975 F.3d 300, 303 (3d Cir. 2020), a Court of Appeals ruled against a public transit agency’s refusal to accept advertisements that were political or discussed matters of public debate. The regulation was not content neutral. The prohibition against Tik Tok would likely be found constitutional because the prohibition is not based on a specific subject or viewpoint. There is one other issue that must be raised --- it is highly unlikely that a government could prohibit all means of public forums for speech. Even if content neutral, it is unlikely that a government could prohibit all social media any more than it could prohibit all newspapers. However, in the case of Tik Tok, prohibiting it from operating in the United States does not effectively prohibit all means of public forums as several other social media platforms still exist. Thus, the often-voiced opinion that eliminating Tik Tok denies its users their First Amendment rights is inaccurate.
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr 26 Apr, 2024
While dogs are often referred to as “man’s best friend,” dogs can also be dangerous, and even the friendliest of dogs may bite when provoked. This this blog post we will discuss some general legal theory about animal bites, including dog bites, and outline what you should do if you were bit by another person’s dog or other animal. Can I Sue for a Dog Bite? Before I answer this question, it is important to understand the legal theory that undergirds animal bite cases. The law classically categorized animals into two categories: domitae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically domesticated or tamed – and ferae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically feral, wild, or exotic. This distinction is significant legally because, generally speaking, those who possess a ferae naturae animal – for example, a tiger – do so at their own peril. This is because if ferae naturae animal bites another person, the owner of the animal is generally presumed to be at-fault. While the owner of a domitae naturae animal can also be held liable for the actions of that animal, generally, a bite by such an animal – for example, a cat or a dog – may not necessarily give rise to a presumption of fault. At least, that was the classical framework. This has been changed by individual laws in many states. Most states have adopted a strict-liability standard in connection with dog bites. This means that a biting dog’s owner will be held liable for injuries caused by the dog, even if the owner used reasonable care to restrain the dog or to protect or warn the other party. Often, this strict-liability view can be viewed as harsh, if one adheres to the “accidents happen” mentality. In recognition of the potentially harsh outcomes strict-liability may bring about, a handful of other states have adopted a “One-Bite Rule”. In essence, a One-Bite Rule is a law that provides that a dog owner may only be held liable if they knew or should have known that the dog has a vicious propensity or is prone to bite, and that owner would only have such knowledge if the dog has bitten someone in the past. In other words, the One-Bite Rule is called this because the owner of a dog with a propensity to bite essentially gets their first bite free because the owner will likely not be found liable for the first bite. This is consistent with the notion of the “foreseeability of the harm” that undergirds much of tort law – in other words, how could the owner foresee that his or her dog would bite if it has never done so before? Conversely, the owner should know, and should therefore be held liable, if the dog has bitten someone before. So, to answer the question of whether you can sue if you have been bitten by a dog, the answer, generally is yes, but the merits of you claim will depend largely on whether you live in a strict-liability state or a One-Bite Rule state. What Do I Do If I Have Been Bitten? While you may, of course, be panicked immediately following a dog bite, it is important to do the following: · Call 911 to report the incident. Make sure a police report is filed, and get a copy of it. · Get the dog owner’s name and contact information, if possible. · Try to get a picture of the dog and the owner, if possible. · Take pictures of the bite wounds while they are still fresh. · Go seek medical treatment, if necessary, and try to leave the appointment with a copy of your medical record in connection with the visit. · Contact a knowledgeable personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. If you or a loved one have been injured by a public actor or public entity, call the Lento Law Group today. Our team of knowledgeable and compassionate attorneys and support staff can help guide you while you work to pick up the pieces after a traumatic accident. Call Lento Law Group today at (856) 652-2000. We will fight to get you the recovery you deserve.
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr. 26 Apr, 2024
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr. July 2023
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff 26 Apr, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 20 April, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff 26 Apr, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 06 April, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 06 March, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
By Lawrence A. Katz, Esquire • 07 Feb, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
Professional discipline in one state can affect a professional license in another state. Don’t run. Get help up front.
01 Mar, 2024
ERIC HAKEEM DEONTAYE MAYS, late Councilman Eric Mays's son and only next of kin, along with Bishop Patrick Munnerlyn, Community Outreach Specialist for the Lento Law Group, cordially invites the Flint community to a candlelight vigil to honor the remarkable life and legacy of Councilman Eric B. Mays. The vigil will take place on Saturday, March 2, at 6:00 PM in front of Flint City Hall, as we come together to celebrate a true hero of Flint, a relentless champion for the community, a visionary leader, a devoted public servant, and a cherished friend. Councilman Mays was a beacon of hope and strength for Flint, advocating tirelessly for the rights and well-being of its residents. His unwavering dedication to serving the community has left an indelible mark on the hearts of all who had the privilege of knowing him. As we gather to remember his remarkable contributions, let us light candles in unity to illuminate the path he paved toward a brighter future for Flint. This vigil is an opportunity for us to reflect on the profound impact of Councilman Mays’ work, to share stories of his courage and kindness, and to reaffirm our commitment to the values he embodied. Participants are welcome to bring their own candles, but candles will also be provided (as long as supplies last) to ensure that everyone can join in this act of remembrance and solidarity. Councilman Mays’ love for the people of Flint was boundless, and in return, he was deeply loved and respected by the community he served. As we mourn his passing, we also celebrate the legacy of a man who dedicated his life to making Flint a better place for all its residents. It has indeed been a sad week in Flint, but let us come together to honor a man who gave so much of himself to our city. Join us in front of Flint City Hall to pay tribute to Councilman Eric B. Mays, a man who deserves the best: our collective love, respect, and admiration. We invite everyone to come and show their support by standing in solidarity as we remember a great man who has left an everlasting mark on our community. Atlanta, GA • Birmingham, AL • Boulder, CO • Coral Springs, FL • Detroit, MI • El Paso, TX • Flint, MI • Honolulu, HI • Los Angeles, CA • Maui, HI Miami, FL • Mount Laurel, NJ • Newark, NJ • New York, NY • Orlando, FL • Philadelphia, PA • Puerta Plata, DR •Richmond, VA • Salt Lake City, UT San Juan, PR • Scottsdale, AZ • Washington, DC 
More Posts
Share by: