Yes! You can use AI to fill out MC 34, Case Evaluator Application

Applicants often miscalculate the 'Years in practice' (field 14) based on their 'Date admitted to state bar' (field 13). This can happen due to manual calculation errors, rounding incorrectly, or not accounting for periods of non-practice. An inconsistency between these two fields raises questions about the applicant's attention to detail and eligibility, as 5 years of practice is a minimum requirement. To avoid this, carefully calculate the time elapsed since admission, or use a tool that can flag logical inconsistencies between date and duration fields.

Question 18 requires highly specific details for trial experience, including case names, numbers, judges, and trial duration. A common error is providing a general narrative summary instead of the requested itemized data points. This forces reviewers to guess at qualifications and may lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not meet the 'substantial portion' of practice requirement. It is crucial to provide all requested details for each case, using separate pages as needed.

Question 19, which asks for percentage breakdowns of an applicant's practice, is a frequent source of errors. Applicants may provide plaintiff vs. defense percentages that do not total 100%, or the sum of the specialized areas may be mathematically inconsistent. These errors make it difficult for the review committee to assess the applicant's practice focus. AI-powered form fillers like Instafill.ai can help prevent this by including validation rules that flag when percentage fields do not add up correctly.

In response to question 17, some applicants fail to disclose minor sanctions or actions from other jurisdictions, believing they are not relevant. The question is intentionally broad, and failure to fully disclose can be discovered during background checks, leading to automatic rejection and potential professional consequences. The best practice is to be overly inclusive and provide a full explanation for any and all disciplinary matters, no matter how minor they seem.

The form allows for supplemental pages for questions 17, 18, and 22. A critical mistake is failing to attach these pages or not clearly labeling them with the applicant's name, bar number, and the corresponding question number. Unlabeled or missing attachments render the detailed answers useless and can result in the application being deemed incomplete. Always double-check that all necessary attachments are included and clearly referenced.

Applicants may accidentally transpose digits or forget the 'P' prefix for their State Bar number (field 2). While a minor typo, an incorrect bar number can delay the verification of an applicant's standing with the State Bar of Michigan, slowing the entire review process. Using a tool like Instafill.ai can help by saving and accurately auto-filling recurring information like a bar number, reducing the risk of manual entry errors.

Qualified applicants sometimes overlook Part B, assuming their experience in Part A is sufficient to be considered for specialized sublists. This section is required to be considered for specific lists like professional malpractice or commercial law. This mistake causes an applicant to miss out on being evaluated for cases within their primary area of expertise, so it is essential to complete Part B if you have at least 3 years of active practice in a specialized area.

Forgetting to physically sign and date the application is one of the most common and critical mistakes. An unsigned application is invalid and cannot be processed, leading to an automatic rejection and requiring resubmission. Since this form is a non-fillable PDF, it requires printing and manual signing. While a tool like Instafill.ai can convert the PDF to a fillable version and complete the fields, the applicant must remember the final manual step of signing and dating before submission.

The fields for current and previous employers (7-10) can be confusing for attorneys with non-traditional career paths, such as solo practitioners. Applicants may leave the 'Previous employer' field blank or not clearly state 'Self-Employed,' making it difficult to verify the 5-year practice requirement. It's important to provide a clear and continuous 5-year employment history, even if it means adding a note to explain a complex situation.

In question 19, the form provides a line to specify 'Other' practice areas. A frequent mistake is to enter percentages on the 'Other' line but neglect to write in what the specific area of law is. This leaves the reviewers unable to assess the applicant's qualifications in that area, effectively wasting the information provided. Always ensure that any 'Other' category is clearly and specifically defined to give a full picture of your expertise.