Michigan’s Legal Defense Fund Act

Samuel D. Jackson • June 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

January 17, 2026
WASHINGTON (AP) — Before President Donald Trump’s administration started dismantling the Education Department, the agency served as a powerful enforcer in cases of sexual violence at schools and universities. It brought the weight of the government against schools that mishandled sexual assault complaints involving students. That work is quickly fading away. The department’s Office for Civil Rights was gutted in Trump’s mass layoffs last year, leaving half as many lawyers to investigate complaints of discrimination based on race, sex or disability in schools. Those who remain face a backlog of more than 25,000 cases. Investigations have dwindled. Before the layoffs last March, the office opened dozens of sexual violence investigations a year. Since then, it’s opened fewer than 10 nationwide, according to internal data obtained by The Associated Press. Yet Trump’s Republican administration has doubled down on sexual discrimination cases of another kind. Trump officials have used Title IX, a 1972 gender equality law, against schools that make accommodations for transgender students and athletes. The Office for Civil Rights has opened nearly 50 such investigations since Trump took office a year ago. Even before the layoffs, critics said the office was understaffed and moved too slowly. Now, many firms that handle Title IX cases have stopped filing complaints, calling it a dead end. “It almost feels like you’re up against the void,” said Katie McKay, a lawyer at the New York firm C.A. Goldberg. “It feels like a big question mark right now,” she said. “How are we supposed to hold a school accountable once it has messed up?” An Education Department spokesperson said the office is working through its caseload, blaming President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration for leaving a backlog and rewriting Title IX rules to protect LGBTQ+ students. Trump officials rolled back those rules. “The Trump Administration has restored commonsense safeguards against sexual violence by returning sex-based separation in intimate facilities,” spokesperson Julie Hartman said. “OCR is and will continue to safeguard the dignity and safety of our nation’s students.” Students have few other places to turn The layoffs have slowed work at the Office for Civil Rights across the board, but it has an outsize impact on cases of sexual violence. Students who are mistreated by their schools — including victims and accused students alike — have few other venues to pursue justice. Many are now left with two options: File a lawsuit or walk away. One woman said she’s losing hope for a complaint she filed in 2024. She alleges her graduate school failed to follow its own policies when it suspended but didn’t expel another student found by the school to have sexually assaulted her. No one has contacted her about the complaint since 2024. The woman recently sued her school as a last resort. She said it feels like a David and Goliath mismatch. “They have all the power, because there is no large organization holding them accountable. It’s just me, just this one individual who’s filing this simple suit,” the woman said. The AP does not typically identify people who say they are victims of sexual assault unless they grant permission. The civil rights office is supposed to provide a free alternative to litigation. Anyone can file a complaint, which can trigger an investigation and sanctions for schools that violate federal law. In 2024, the agency received more than 1,000 complaints involving sexual violence or sexual harassment, according to an annual report. It’s unclear how many complaints have been filed more recently. Trump’s administration has not reported newer figures. In conversations with the AP, some staffers said cases are piling up so quickly they can’t track how many involve sexual violence. In December, the department acknowledged the civil rights backlog and announced dozens of downsized workers would be brought back to the office amid a legal challenge to their layoffs. The workers’ return offers some hope to those with pending civil rights complaints. Department officials have vowed to keep pushing for the layoffs. Historically, the feds have held schools and colleges accountable Before Trump was elected to his second term, the office had more than 300 pending investigations involving sexual assault, according to a public database. Most of those cases are believed to be sitting idle as investigators prioritize easier complaints, according to staffers who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. The details of past cases underscore the urgency of the work. In 2024, the office took action against a Pennsylvania school system after a girl with a disability told staff she had been sexually touched by a bus driver. She was put back on that driver’s bus later that afternoon, plus the next two days. The district was required to designate a Title IX coordinator for its schools, review previous complaints and consider compensation for the girl’s family. That year, the office demanded changes at a Montana school where a boy was pinned down by other students and assaulted after a wrestling practice. The students had been suspended for three days after school officials treated it as a case of hazing instead of sexual assault. In another case, the office sided with a University of Notre Dame student who had been expelled over accusations of sexual misconduct. The student said the college never told him precisely what he was accused of and refused to interview witnesses he put forward. Cases that get attention from the federal office are being handled under federal rules created during Trump’s first term. Those rules were designed to bolster the rights of students accused of sexual misconduct. Lawyers who work with accused students see little improvement. Justin Dillon, a Washington lawyer, said some of his recent complaints have been opened for investigation. He tells clients not to hold their breath. Even before the layoffs, cases could drag on for years, he said. Others gave up on the office years ago. The LLF National Law Firm said it stopped filing complaints in 2021 in favor of suing schools directly. Lawyers at the firm said the office had become incapable of delivering timely outcomes, which was only worsened by the layoffs. Complaints can be resolved several ways. They can be dismissed if they don’t pass legal muster. Many go to mediation, akin to a settlement. Some end in voluntary agreements from schools, with plans to rectify past wrongs and prevent future ones. In 2024, under Biden, the office secured 23 voluntary agreements from schools and colleges in cases involving sexual violence, according to a public database. In 2018, during Trump’s first term, there were 58. Since Trump took office again last year, there have been none. The dismantling of the Office for Civil Rights comes as a blow to Laura Dunn, a civil rights lawyer who was influential in getting President Barack Obama’s Democratic administration to make campus sexual assault a priority. As the issue gained public attention, the office started fielding hundreds of complaints a year. “All the progress survivors have made by sharing their story is being lost,” said Dunn, who’s now a Democratic candidate for Congress in New York. “We are literally losing civil rights progress in the United States, and it’s pushing us back more than 50 years.” ___ The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
By By: Joseph D. Lento September 8, 2025 September 12, 2025
Artificial intelligence continues to make big changes on school campuses at all levels nationwide. Students have already learned how helpful AI tools can be for studies. Yet students have also experienced a frightening wave of school academic misconduct charges alleging misuse of those AI tools. LLG National Law Group’s premier attorneys have rallied to the defense of students accused of AI misuse, defending and defeating school misconduct charges for students at all levels nationwide. But the latest wave of AI chatbot tools threatens to once again transform the school misconduct landscape. Call 833.536.8652 now to retain the LLG National Law Group’s highly qualified attorneys if you face artificial intelligence issues with your school. Student Use of AI Tools in School To this point, students have used ChatGPT and other general artificial intelligence tools, and similar tools designed more specifically for education, to aid their studies. Students have used general AI tools to propose paper topics, suggest paper organization, flag spelling and grammar errors, and suggest improvements in writing. Students have also used general AI tools to correct problem answers, explain subjects more thoroughly, and for similar traditional study purposes. These uses of AI have made studies more efficient and productive, speeding learning. Chat Bots as the Next Phase of School AI Tools Artificial intelligence chatbots, though, are further accelerating the pace of technological change in schools. Students are now able to use platforms like Schoolhub.ai to create their own individual AI-powered chatbot as a personal study assistant, tailored to their specific needs and school program. Getting ready for school once meant buying notebooks and pencils. It later meant buying a laptop computer or tablet. Today, preparing for school may mean creating and training your own chatbot as a personal study assistant. The Discipline Risk of Chat Bots Teachers, professors, departments, and schools have all been slow in developing and publishing policies on student use of AI tools. That delay led to a first wave of student academic misconduct charges for misusing readily available, greatly helpful, and widely used AI tools. Our attorneys have been busy turning back that first wave of AI misuse charges. The new AI-powered chatbots, though, don’t just write assigned papers or answer exam problems, as specifically prohibited by many school policies. The AI chatbots are instead active student study partners, more like a human tutor than a computer program or other digital tool. Schools need to quickly modify their AI policies to help students take due advantage of these powerful new learning tools, rather than to punish students for getting the help they need. Premier Student AI Misconduct Defense Available Retain the LLG National Law Group’s premier attorneys if you are a student facing AI misconduct charges in a school disciplinary proceeding. Our attorneys are ready to help you defend your AI chatbot use or other use of AI tools. We help hundreds of students nationwide defend and defeat student code of conduct charges of all kinds. Call 833.536.8652 now for the representation you need for your best possible student discipline outcome.
By By Joseph D. Lento, Esquire • 27 June, 2025 June 27, 2025
Harvard University’s regulatory issues with the current federal administration impact student rights and interests. Get our help.
By By Joseph D. Lento, Esquire • 26 June, 2025 June 27, 2025
The year 2025 brings more changes to the national Nurse Licensing Compact. Get our skilled attorney's help with license issues.
By David Haislip March 14, 2025
The expansion of nationwide licensure compacts impacts the ability of licensed professionals to gain and retain licenses. Get help.
By David Haislip December 5, 2024
By Terrell A. Ratliff, Esquire • 3 rd December, 2024
By David Haislip December 5, 2024
The Lento Law Group defends people accused of or charged with child abuse in Pennsylvania.
By David Haislip November 28, 2024
A 30-year-old woman in Oklahoma received a victim protection order (VPO) against her father after he beat her.
By David Haislip November 28, 2024
Bam Margera heads to rehab after a DUI arrest in Pennsylvania. Learn about DUI defense in Pennsylvania.
By David Haislip November 15, 2024
The House of Representatives has advanced an anti-hazing bill for Senate consideration that would increase hazing prevention.